=> Federal Criminal Indictment for Violating MySpace TOS <= Mom indicted in deadly MySpace hoax
_ Prof. Jonez _
Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
Megan Meier, 13, hanged herself in her bedroom after being targeted in a MySpace
hoax.
Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis is said to have helped create a false-identity
MySpace account to contact Megan Meier, who thought she was chatting with a
16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Josh didn't exist.
Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006 after receiving cruel messages,
including one stating the world would be better off without her.
Salvador Hernandez, assistant agent in charge of the Los Angeles FBI office,
called the case heart-rending.
"The Internet is a world unto itself. People must know how far they can go
before they must stop. They exploited a young girl's weaknesses," Hernandez
said. "Whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible
for her actions."
Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing
protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict
emotional distress on the girl.
Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Megan.
U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said this was the first time the federal statute
on accessing protected computers has been used in a social-networking case. It
has been used in the past to address hacking.
"This was a tragedy that did not have to happen," O'Brien said.
Both the girl and MySpace are named as victims in the case, he said.
Don't Miss
a.. Read the indictment (pdf)
MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills, California-based Fox Interactive Media
Inc., which is owned by News Corp. The indictment noted that MySpace computer
servers are located in Los Angeles County.
Due to juvenile privacy rules, the U.S. attorney's office said, the indictment
refers to the girl as M.T.M.
FBI agents in St. Louis and Los Angeles investigated the case, Hernandez said.
Each of the four counts carries a maximum possible penalty of five years in
prison.
Drew will be arraigned in St. Louis and then moved to Los Angeles for trial.
The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that
include, among other things, not promoting information they know to be false or
misleading; soliciting personal information from anyone under age 18 and not
using information gathered from the Web site to "harass, abuse or harm other
people."
Drew and others who were not named conspired to violate the service terms from
about September 2006 to mid-October that year, according to the indictment. It
alleges that they registered as a MySpace member under a phony name and used the
account to obtain information on the girl.
Drew and her coconspirators "used the information obtained over the MySpace
computer system to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass the juvenile
MySpace member," the indictment charged.
After the girl killed herself, Drew and the others deleted the information for
the account, the indictment said.
Last month, an employee of Drew's, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good
Morning America" that she created the false MySpace profile but that Drew wrote
some of the messages to Megan.
Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what
Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.
Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better
place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with
"Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.
"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid
of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.
Megan's death was investigated by Missouri authorities, but no state charges
were filed because no laws appeared to apply to the case
_ Prof. Jonez _
jerry warner
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> [Image]
Reality_CheckŠ
"jerry warner" <"warne(ns)"@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:482D14F8...@mchsi.com...
> murder by proxy.
Wrong.
Seth
>Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
>network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>
>Megan Meier, 13, hanged herself in her bedroom after being targeted in a MySpace
>hoax.
>Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing
>protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict
>emotional distress on the girl.
>The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that
>include, among other things, not promoting information they know to be false or
>misleading; soliciting personal information from anyone under age 18 and not
>using information gathered from the Web site to "harass, abuse or harm other
>people."
Too bad the feds won't similarly prosecute spammers who violate terms
of service.
Seth
_ Prof. Jonez _
Or usenet posters who post under pseudonymous names ...
richard
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri woman
>Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
>network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>
Bullshit.
No grand jury would indict on such flimsy evidence that invloves the
1st amendment.
Violations of a TOS is a federal offense? I don't think so.
richard
wrote:
Precisely. That's why this story sounds like a true hoax.
If it were real, how come it ain't made the front page of every
newspaper in the country, let alone air time on every news channel?
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-067A55.23...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <1vis24hmgv78i84b0...@4ax.com>,
> prosecutors decided not to press charges. Then the feds investigated,
> and there was nothing to report until, well, the indictment.
>
> As for being in the news, google it. ""Lori Drew" indictment" returned
> 23,600 hits. Searching news.google.com for the same text found 1,381
> news stories.
>
> Just because you haven't heard about something, Richard, doesn't mean it
> isn't newsworthy. If anything, it makes it more likely that it is.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in
fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster"
when pushed off a cliff.
Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile said:
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
Seth
>>> Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of
>>> accessing protected computers without authorization to get
>>> information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl.
>> . . .
>>> The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of
>>> service that include, among other things, not promoting information
>>> they know to be false or misleading; soliciting personal information
>>> from anyone under age 18 and not using information gathered from the
>>> Web site to "harass, abuse or harm other people."
>>
>> Too bad the feds won't similarly prosecute spammers who violate terms
>> of service.
>
>Or usenet posters who post under pseudonymous names ...
That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer being
accessed, in general.
Seth
Reality_CheckŠ
richard
>In article <6gis24tvfhv060vq0...@4ax.com>,
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:16:48 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>
>> >LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri
>> >woman
>> >Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
>> >network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>> No grand jury would indict on such flimsy evidence that invloves the
>> 1st amendment.
>
>Let's see how much is wrong with that statement, Richard:
>
>1) A grand jury did indict.
Show the federal law the indictment was based on.
>
>2) You have no idea how strong or flimsy the evidence is.
It was based upon assumptions and fingerpointing. Until the party
spoke up and said they were responsible.
>
>3) The crime she was indicted for does not concern the first amendment,
>either facially or as applied. What she said is irrelevant.
Freedom of speech is not covered by the 1st amendment?
Since when?
>
>> Violations of a TOS is a federal offense? I don't think so.
>
>It doesn't matter what you think. It can be a federal offense in some
>circumstances, such as this one.
Post the proof. If that is true, then YOU are in deep shit as 90% of
usenet users are.
Hell, I have tried to get a web site taken down for violations of TOS
and the host refused to do so. Now because a suicide is involved
violations of the TOS is a federal offense? Post the fucking proof!
richard
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri woman
>Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
>network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>
Ok let's clarify this a bit more. From what I have read online is, the
indictment has not yet been granted. It is only a request by two
unnamed federal agents from Los Angeles.
The suicide, and crime took place in 2006.
The state of Missouri did not see there was enough evidence to charge
anyone with anything.
So now there is sufficient evidence on the federal level?
Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
hell.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> You're physically incapable of refraining from responding to a post of
> mine, aren't you? Is it because you're still smarting from the last
> time I showed you up?
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile
Deadrat
news:vqms245b2r7gf8mpp...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:50:10 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <6gis24tvfhv060vq0...@4ax.com>,
>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:16:48 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a
>>> >Missouri woman
>>> >Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online
>>> >social network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed
>>> >suicide.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>> No grand jury would indict on such flimsy evidence that invloves the
>>> 1st amendment.
>>
>>Let's see how much is wrong with that statement, Richard:
>>
>>1) A grand jury did indict.
>
> Show the federal law the indictment was based on.
Here it is:
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
Sec. 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with
computers
I'm going to ask you to do something that I've asked before and which
you've never done. Go to the source, in this case:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1030
and read carefully through the law with the mindset *of the other side.*
In other words, read the text of the statute and try to make the
strongest argument you can *for* the indictment.
I'll get you started. Section 1030 has eight subsections:
a. Defines the crime,
b. Criminalizes an attempt at the crime defined in a.
c. Sets the penalties,
d. Gives the Secret Service jurisdiction,
e. Defines terms,
f. Exempts law enforcement agencies,
g. Allows victims to sue, and
h. Mandates reports of prosecutions.
Go through a) and make a case for the commission of a crime. You may
need to consult e) You may ignore the rest.
Section a. has six paragraphs numbered 1-6, each of which has
subsections, which in turn have sub-subsections. It's not that easy.
>>2) You have no idea how strong or flimsy the evidence is.
>
> It was based upon assumptions and fingerpointing. Until the party
> spoke up and said they were responsible.
>
>>
>>3) The crime she was indicted for does not concern the first
>>amendment, either facially or as applied. What she said is
>>irrelevant.
>
> Freedom of speech is not covered by the 1st amendment?
> Since when?
>>> Violations of a TOS is a federal offense? I don't think so.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what you think. It can be a federal offense in some
>>circumstances, such as this one.
>
> Post the proof. If that is true, then YOU are in deep shit as 90% of
> usenet users are.
>
> Hell, I have tried to get a web site taken down for violations of TOS
> and the host refused to do so. Now because a suicide is involved
> violations of the TOS is a federal offense? Post the fucking proof!
The USA can do it; Larry can do it; I can do it.
See whether you can do it. Here's why:
The indictment is a disgrace. The USA should be ashamed of himself, the
grand jury should hang its collective head in shame, and the federal
judge in LA should issue a scorching dismissal with prejudice. I assume
this comports with your general feeling.
But you can't argue your case effectively without understanding what the
law says, and you can't do that until you read the law *and* comprehend
the thinking of the prosecutor.
Try to analyze 1030a subsection by subsection.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <hmns24tlnck5p8ik9...@4ax.com>,
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:16:48 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>
>> >LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri
>> >woman
>> >Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online
>> >social
>> >network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Ok let's clarify this a bit more. From what I have read online is, the
>> indictment has not yet been granted. It is only a request by two
>> unnamed federal agents from Los Angeles.
>
> very first sentence of the story you replied to stated.
>
> For further proof, a copy of the indictment is here:
>
> http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/15/my.space.drew.indictment.pd
> f
>
> (This copy does not have the grand jury foreperson's signature, likely
> to protect their anonymity.)
>
>
>> The suicide, and crime took place in 2006.
>> The state of Missouri did not see there was enough evidence to charge
>> anyone with anything.
>> So now there is sufficient evidence on the federal level?
>
> investigated the case but determined that no Missouri law applied to
> these facts. The feds investigated the case, and they determined that
> there were several federal laws that this woman violated.
>
>> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>> will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
>> hell.
>
> issue.
ROTFLMAO !!
_ Prof. Jonez _
> mine, can you?
This from the moron Larry who's enfatuated with battling Richard for
the Usenet Title of the World's Most Ignorant Legal Imbecile.
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime, or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - or that he
was in fact innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
_ Prof. Jonez _
Reality_CheckŠ
Your confession is noted.
Seth
In article <hmns24tlnck5p8ik9...@4ax.com>,
richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>will be granted?
Accessing a Federal Interest Computer without authorization (or beyond
the scope of authorization).
Seth
Seth
Reality_CheckŠ
"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g0n71g$qgq$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
>
> Seth
>
>
Reality_CheckŠ
> *sneck*
>
> In article <hmns24tlnck5p8ik9...@4ax.com>,
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>>will be granted?
>
> Accessing a Federal Interest Computer without authorization
She had "authorization", it's open to anyone.
> (or beyond the scope of authorization).
She accessed nothing "beyond" what's open to, and accessed
by, any other member of the public.
>
> Seth
>
>
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote
> means, do so. But the fact that you have to note it demonstrates its
> not at all what you claim it to be.
You just can't stop lying, can you Larry ?
Seth
Reality_CheckŠ <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:g0n71g$qgq$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <6974o6F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Reality_CheckŠ <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in
>>>> That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer being
>>>> accessed, in general.
>>>
>>>This from the Cancel Kingpin of Censorship ... how quaint.
>>
>> Whine, spammer, whine.
>
>Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
Anybody with a brain might note that all I did was _characterize_ spam
by providing a way to _quantify_ it.
There are those who want to claim that anybody saying anything they
don't like is somehow violating their rights, while they can say
anything they want. They are, of course, wrong.
Seth
Seth
Reality_CheckŠ <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:g0n70f$8a6$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>>>will be granted?
>>
>> Accessing a Federal Interest Computer without authorization
>
>She had "authorization", it's open to anyone.
It's open to anyone who obeys certain rules. She violated those rules.
Seth
MB
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that
> include, among other things, not promoting information they know to be false
> or
> misleading;
So how many of us are guilty for using false names, since we are
promoting information that is false or misleading. Do you really have a
MD or phd prof. jonez? Is Jonez your real last name?
The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone who
violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states you cant
mislead will be guilty of using a false name, IE tiny dancer, me, bo
raxo, etc etc etc.
If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
horrid precedent!!
MB
> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
> will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
> hell.
myspace, which is located in California, has terms of service (tos, you
know which you dont read and just click ok) which says you cant use
false or misleading information, ie a false name or age. BTW, the
victim violated the TOS by being too young, and would be guilty of what
Drew is charged with.
The charges have NOTHING to do with Drew being mean, or bullying, or
child abuse, just using a false name which all of us do
richard
Having read the actual law Ms. Drew is charged under, the court should
dismiss these false charges.
The entire heart of the law is aimed at persons who have falsely and
illegally obtained access to "protected computers" to do damage to
that computer or obtain protected property from it.
This is not the case. Ms. Drew, and millions of others, are granted
permission to use that computer, and as far I know, she has not done
so in an attempt to damage or otherwise act against the computer
illegally in some manner.
As you so aptly pointed out, the jurisdiction is granted to the
"Secret Service" NOT the FBI. So the agents had no jurisdiction.
This is a suicide case, not a homicide. If such charges can be filed
and the jury agrees that a criminal act took place, then every damn
person who uses such services is on notice as they could just as
easily be in front of a judge and jury for their harassing.
It's bullshit politics and nothing more.
MB
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> Yes, because different laws are involved. Missouri authorities
> investigated the case but determined that no Missouri law applied to
> these facts. The feds investigated the case, and they determined that
> there were several federal laws that this woman violated.
>
> > Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
> > will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
> > hell.
>
> You always bitch, Richard. And you're always on the wrong side of the
> issue.
She is being charged with violating the TOS, which no one reads,
specifically not using her real name. IS Larry your real first and last
name? What about your email address, is it correct? Have you read the
terms of service for supernews? You are probably in violation and can
be charged with a 5 year sentence!! Almost all of us can, for that
matter!!
MB
> Bullshit.
> No grand jury would indict on such flimsy evidence that invloves the
> 1st amendment.
> Violations of a TOS is a federal offense? I don't think so.
Unfortunately, it looks like it is true. If a TOS says you cant
mislead, and you dont use your real name, you are guilty of a federal
charge. Very sad.
For the record, I WISH drew was indicted for child abuse or harrassment
and not a made up crime that almost all of us are guilty of. Who here
has read the whole TOS of google or supernews or our isp?
richard
wrote:
Bingo. There's that magic word in there. "FEDERAL".
myspace.com equals an FIC?
IOW, for the law to be applied, the computer violated must be owned by
the united states government.
richard
wrote:
>In article <699e5nF...@mid.individual.net>,
But it's not a federal crime. If it were, you and I would be in jail.
MB
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > Freedom of speech is not covered by the 1st amendment?
> > Since when?
>
> Speech has nothing to do with this case. She accessed a protected
> computer without authorization. What she said and what she did while
> accessing the computer(s) is not relevant towards the crime.
You are retarded. myspace is open to all. She had authorization, but
the claim is that since she did not use her correct name, she violated
TOS, and is thus guilty of hacking. You, Larry, could be just as
guilty. Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
MB
> Why? What TOS from my ISP am I violating by posting here? How am I
> accessing one of their computers without authorization, when I pay them
> every month to access the Internet through my account, and that's
> exactly what I do?
Myspace is free. She is being charged because she did not use her real
name when the tos said she cannot use misleading information. Is your
full name "larry" (you dont have a last name?). You may be violating
your TOS, and merely violating your TOS, according to the FBI, is a
hacking violation.
Deadrat
news:clb434h32ivofod09...@4ax.com:
This is gonna be harder than it seemed at first.
Richard, the phrase "Federal Interest Computer" does not appear in
18USC1030. The relevant adjective is "protected." Now go look at
18USC1030 (e), and tell us whether the computer in question comes within
the law.
Deadrat
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
Go here:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/15/my.space.drew.indictment.pdf
Maybe then you'll quit making a fool of yourself.
Deadrat
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
Go here:
Deadrat
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
Go here:
Deadrat
news:30b434dvi12lk8dnp...@4ax.com:
I'm having trouble believing that you read the actual law. And you're
dangling by your participle.
> The entire heart of the law is aimed at persons who have falsely and
> illegally obtained access to "protected computers" to do damage to
> that computer or obtain protected property from it.
Let's go through it, and see if we can reason this out together. There
are 7 sections of 18USC1030 (a). We'll make it a multiple-choice test.
Which one of these sections might apply to the situation:
Using unauthorized access to
1) obtain "classified" data
2) obtain information
3) access a nonpublic computer
4) defraud
5) cause damage*, computer, monetary, medical, physical
6) traffick in passwords
7) extort
(*damage to the computer itself; monetary, medical, or physical damage to
persons; damage to public health, public safety, the administration of
justice, or national security)
Choose one.
> This is not the case. Ms. Drew, and millions of others, are granted
> permission to use that computer, and as far I know, she has not done
> so in an attempt to damage or otherwise act against the computer
> illegally in some manner.
Which one is she charged with?
> As you so aptly pointed out, the jurisdiction is granted to the
> "Secret Service" NOT the FBI. So the agents had no jurisdiction.
Richard, you're making my head hurt. Section (e) says the Secret Service
"in addition to any other agency having such authority." Did you really
read the law?
> This is a suicide case, not a homicide. If such charges can be filed
> and the jury agrees that a criminal act took place, then every damn
> person who uses such services is on notice as they could just as
> easily be in front of a judge and jury for their harassing.
Possibly. Answer the multiple choice question first and we'll go from
there.
> It's bullshit politics and nothing more.
Possibly.
Deadrat
sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <irb434l9bsvh8p56m...@4ax.com>,
> Someone has to be first, Richard. Who knows - maybe you'll be next.
I didn't see willful obtuseness in 18USC1030. Am I missing something?
Deadrat
sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <retard-5941C1....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> She's not charged with "hacking."
>
> She accessed the computer with authorization - that is, she created an
> account and logged in. In fact, she specifically did not "hack" in.
> Once she gained access, she acted in excess of that authorization - that
> is, she violated the TOS.
>
> If you let the phone repairman into your house to fix a phone jack, and
> he steals $20 off of your dresser, he's still guilty of a crime, even
> though he didn't break in to your house.
>
>> Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
>
> I have never accessed information in excess of the authorization granted
> to me by my ISP. Have you?
Ever give your ISP bogus information about yourself?
Deadrat
news:x-7E6FBB.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <wnqYj.595$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> I don't think Richard's ever read a statute in his life, DR, and with
> all due respect, I doubt he's going to start just because you directed
> him towards a relevant one.
DR: Deadrat or Due Respect?
But hope springs eternal. It is my goal in life to bring richard the
intellectual joy of investigating a subject, questioning his own
understanding and that of others, and coming to reasoned conclusions that
may disagree with his initial emotional responses.
Wait a minute. Not "goal in life." What's that other thing?
Oh, yeah. Hobby.
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>>> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in
>
>>>>> That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer
>>>>> being accessed, in general.
>>>>
>>>> This from the Cancel Kingpin of Censorship ... how quaint.
>>>
>>> Whine, spammer, whine.
>>
>> Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
>
> Anybody with a brain might note that all I did was _characterize_ spam
> by providing a way to _quantify_ it.
Save it for your Tribunal you fascist swine.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <x-5B1C6A.00...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>> Freedom of speech is not covered by the 1st amendment?
>>> Since when?
>>
>> Speech has nothing to do with this case. She accessed a protected
>> computer without authorization. What she said and what she did while
>> accessing the computer(s) is not relevant towards the crime.
>
> You are retarded. myspace is open to all. She had authorization, but
> the claim is that since she did not use her correct name,
Define "correct name".
> she violated
> TOS, and is thus guilty of hacking. You, Larry, could be just as
> guilty. Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
Lying Larry (Glasser) has repeatedly violated his TOS, among other
crimes ...
Trace
> Seth wrote:
> >>>> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in
>
> >>>>> That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer
> >>>>> being accessed, in general.
>
> >>>> This from the Cancel Kingpin of Censorship ... how quaint.
>
> >>> Whine, spammer, whine.
>
> >> Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
>
> > Anybody with a brain might note that all I did was _characterize_ spam
> > by providing a way to _quantify_ it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Free Speech? HAHA, this country is done. Its over. Anytime you do
something that some government kook doesn't like, a made up law will
suffice when there is no real law against what you've done. You are
allowed to work, go home, watch TV, play on the Internet a little, but
don't talk about unapproved topics, don't chide your "leaders" because
if you do, well, read what they did to this woman. They used laws
against her that were not meant for her kind of actions, but they
didn't like what she did, so they figure the public won't say
anything, and they will get to put her away.
Its over. Free Speech, freedom of the press are now well under
attack, and Americans are too busy to do anything about it.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article
> <retard-5941C1....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, MB
> <ret...@whittehouse.govv> wrote:
>
>
> She accessed the computer with authorization - that is, she created an
> account and logged in. In fact, she specifically did not "hack" in.
> Once she gained access, she acted in excess of that authorization -
BULLSHIT.
> that is, she violated the TOS.
A civil tort between her and her ISP.
>
> If you let the phone repairman into your house to fix a phone jack,
> and he steals $20 off of your dresser, he's still guilty of a crime,
Stealing is a crime, ipso facto, you lying jackass.
To use your pathetic attempt at analogy, if you allow the phone
repairman into your house and demand that he have his "real name"
embroidered on his shirt, and instead he has Lyin' Larry the Legal
Imbecile written in magic marker on his forehead, has he committed
any crime, you stammering asswipe?
_ Prof. Jonez _
Lyin' Larry Glasser has repeatedly misled people as to his real identity,
along with misleading those few readers so profoundly stupid to
believe anything he posts:
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster"
when pushed off a cliff.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <6gis24tvfhv060vq0...@4ax.com>,
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Bullshit.
>> No grand jury would indict on such flimsy evidence that invloves the
>> 1st amendment.
>> Violations of a TOS is a federal offense? I don't think so.
>
> Unfortunately, it looks like it is true. If a TOS says you cant
> mislead,
Lyin' Larry misleads people, albiet those profoundly stupid enough
to believe what he posts, everytime he pontificates his trademark
legal idiocies, to wit:
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>> In article <hmns24tlnck5p8ik9...@4ax.com>,
>>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>>>> will be granted?
>>>
>>> Accessing a Federal Interest Computer without authorization
>>
>
> It's open to anyone who obeys certain rules.
> She violated those rules.
Is that your final answer, fascist? That violating ANY TOS
is a FELONY ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>>>>> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in
>>
>>>>>>> That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer
>>>>>>> being accessed, in general.
>>
>>>>>> This from the Cancel Kingpin of Censorship ... how quaint.
>>
>>>>> Whine, spammer, whine.
>>
>>>> Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
>>
>>> Anybody with a brain might note that all I did was _characterize_
>>> spam by providing a way to _quantify_ it.
>>
>> Save it for your Tribunal you fascist swine.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Free Speech? HAHA, this country is done. Its over. Anytime you do
> something that some government kook doesn't like, a made up law will
> suffice when there is no real law against what you've done. You are
> allowed to work, go home, watch TV, play on the Internet a little, but
> don't talk about unapproved topics, don't chide your "leaders" because
> if you do, well, read what they did to this woman. They used laws
> against her that were not meant for her kind of actions, but they
> didn't like what she did, so they figure the public won't say
> anything, and they will get to put her away.
>
> Its over. Free Speech, freedom of the press are now well under
> attack, and Americans are too busy to do anything about it.
Pay special thanks to Comrade Briedbart.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <dIqYj.616$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
You lying piece of shit.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal jackass
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>> In article <6gis24tvfhv060vq0...@4ax.com>,
>>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>> No grand jury would indict on such flimsy evidence that invloves
>>>> the 1st amendment.
>>>> Violations of a TOS is a federal offense? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it looks like it is true. If a TOS says you cant
>>> mislead,
>>
>> Lyin' Larry misleads people, albiet those profoundly stupid enough
>> to believe what he posts, everytime he pontificates his trademark
>> legal idiocies, to wit:
>
> life.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal jackass
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <69esvmF...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> You need to move on with your life, instead of obsessively responding
> to every post of mine. I've repeatedly shown you up on these
> newsgroups.
Riiiiight ...
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <69es4vF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> In article
>>> <retard-5941C1....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, MB
>>> <ret...@whittehouse.govv> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <x-5B1C6A.00...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Larry
>>>> <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Freedom of speech is not covered by the 1st amendment?
>>>>>> Since when?
>>>>>
>>>>> Speech has nothing to do with this case. She accessed a protected
>>>>> computer without authorization. What she said and what she did
>>>>> while accessing the computer(s) is not relevant towards the crime.
>>>>
>>>> You are retarded. myspace is open to all. She had authorization,
>>>> but the claim is that since she did not use her correct name, she
>>>> violated TOS, and is thus guilty of hacking. You, Larry, could be
>>>> just as guilty.
>>>
>>> She's not charged with "hacking."
>>>
>>> She accessed the computer with authorization - that is, she created
>>> an account and logged in. In fact, she specifically did not "hack"
>>> in. Once she gained access, she acted in excess of that
>>> authorization -
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>
>
> together multiple syllables to form a word.
>
>
>>> that is, she violated the TOS.
>>
>> A civil tort between her and her ISP.
>
>
>
>>> If you let the phone repairman into your house to fix a phone jack,
>>> and he steals $20 off of your dresser, he's still guilty of a crime,
>>
>> Stealing is a crime, ipso facto, you lying jackass.
>>
>> To use your pathetic attempt at analogy, if you allow the phone
>> repairman into your house and demand that he have his "real name"
>> embroidered on his shirt, and instead he has Lyin' Larry the Legal
>> Imbecile written in magic marker on his forehead, has he committed
>> any crime, you stammering asswipe?
>
> shirt, and he tells you he does, when in fact he does not, then yes,
> he could be charged with fraud or swindling-related charges in some
> jurisdictions. Although I think many a prosecutors would elect not to
> pursue charges in such a case.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <wnqYj.595$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>> news:clb434h32ivofod09...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:09:19 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *sneck*
>>>>
>>>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the
>>>>> indictment will be granted?
>>>>
>>>> beyond the scope of authorization).
>>>>
>>>> Seth
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bingo. There's that magic word in there. "FEDERAL".
>>>
>>> myspace.com equals an FIC?
>>>
>>> IOW, for the law to be applied, the computer violated must be owned
>>> by the united states government.
>>
>> This is gonna be harder than it seemed at first.
>>
>> Richard, the phrase "Federal Interest Computer" does not appear in
>> 18USC1030. The relevant adjective is "protected." Now go look at
>> 18USC1030 (e), and tell us whether the computer in question comes
>> within the law.
>>
>
> I don't think Richard's ever read a statute in his life, DR,
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Deadrat
news:x-396C06.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <dIqYj.616$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
> My ISP? No, not that I know of. Have you?
All the time.
Deadrat
news:x-2F3465.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <9LqYj.618$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote in
>> news:x-7E6FBB.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>>
>> > In article <wnqYj.595$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat
>> > <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>> >> news:clb434h32ivofod09...@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Bingo. There's that magic word in there. "FEDERAL".
>> >> >
>> >> > myspace.com equals an FIC?
>> >> >
>> >> > IOW, for the law to be applied, the computer violated must be
>> >> > owned by the united states government.
>> >>
>> >> This is gonna be harder than it seemed at first.
>> >>
>> >> Richard, the phrase "Federal Interest Computer" does not appear in
>> >> 18USC1030. The relevant adjective is "protected." Now go look at
>> >> 18USC1030 (e), and tell us whether the computer in question comes
>> >> within the law.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think Richard's ever read a statute in his life, DR, and
>> > with all due respect, I doubt he's going to start just because you
>> > directed him towards a relevant one.
>>
>> DR: Deadrat or Due Respect?
>
> Deadrat. (Otherwise, "due respect" would appear twice in the
> sentence.)
>
>> But hope springs eternal. It is my goal in life to bring richard the
>> intellectual joy of investigating a subject, questioning his own
>> understanding and that of others, and coming to reasoned conclusions
>> that may disagree with his initial emotional responses.
>>
>> Wait a minute. Not "goal in life." What's that other thing?
>
> I'm glad to see you correct yourself. Otherwise, you were in for a
> lifetime of disappointment.
>
>
>> Oh, yeah. Hobby.
>
> I was thinking "pipe dream."
C'mon richard. Show Larry he's wrong.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
Last time I let that guy in to fix the phones, DSL didn't work for a
week.
Deadrat
021ac6...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On May 19, 9:35 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> Seth wrote:
>> > Reality_Check© <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >>> Reality_Check© <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >>>> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in
>>
>> >>>>> That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer
>> >>>>> being accessed, in general.
>>
>> >>>> This from the Cancel Kingpin of Censorship ... how quaint.
>>
>> >>> Whine, spammer, whine.
>>
>> >> Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
>>
>> > Anybody with a brain might note that all I did was _characterize_ spam
>> > by providing a way to _quantify_ it.
>>
>> Save it for your Tribunal you fascist swine.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Free Speech? HAHA, this country is done.
<snip>
> Its over. Free Speech, freedom of the press are now well under
> attack, and Americans are too busy to do anything about it.
I'm sorry. Did you say something?
MB
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
>
> I have never accessed information in excess of the authorization granted
> to me by my ISP. Have you?
How would you know unless you have completely read the terms of service
to find out what actions are permissible? Plus I did not see in the
indictment any reference to them trying to get personal information
about the victim.
Plus this hinges on one knowing what the TOS is, and EVERYONE just
clicks a box acknowledging the TOS. The TOS should not be valid if you
can just click a box to acknowledge knowledge.
MB
richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Having read the actual law Ms. Drew is charged under, the court should
> dismiss these false charges.
>
> The entire heart of the law is aimed at persons who have falsely and
> illegally obtained access to "protected computers" to do damage to
> that computer or obtain protected property from it.
I am not sure about the second paragraph, but it should be thrown out
because it hinges on the TOS being valid, and since you only have to
click a box to acknowledge the tremendously long TOS (like do any of us
read the legalese?? we just click the box)
Deadrat
news:retard-303967....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
> In article <x-1E38A2.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>> > Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
>>
>> I have never accessed information in excess of the authorization
>> granted to me by my ISP. Have you?
>
> How would you know unless you have completely read the terms of
> service to find out what actions are permissible? Plus I did not
> see in the indictment any reference to them trying to get personal
> information about the victim.
<quote>
... defendant DREW ... conspired ... to access a computer ... without
authorization ... and by means of an interstate communication, obtain
informaiton from that computer to further a tortious act, namely,
intentional inflictionof emtional distres, ...
</quote>
It doesn't have to be "personal" information. Quit making a fool of
yourself.
> Plus this hinges on one knowing what the TOS is, and EVERYONE just
> clicks a box acknowledging the TOS. The TOS should not be valid if
> you can just click a box to acknowledge knowledge.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda. If you click it, you're presumed to know what's
in it. No different from signing a contract you later claim you didn't
read.
Cynic
wrote:
>In article <hmns24tlnck5p8ik9...@4ax.com>,
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>> will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
>> hell.
>
>myspace, which is located in California, has terms of service (tos, you
>know which you dont read and just click ok) which says you cant use
>false or misleading information, ie a false name or age. BTW, the
>victim violated the TOS by being too young, and would be guilty of what
>Drew is charged with.
>
>The charges have NOTHING to do with Drew being mean, or bullying, or
>child abuse, just using a false name which all of us do
Contravening a provider's TOS is not a criminal act, and cannot result
in either jail nor a criminal record. At the very worst, the provider
could sue you - but would have to show that they suffered monetary
loss as a result of you breaking their TOS.
--
Cynic
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
05/19/2008
at 06:44 PM, MB <ret...@whittehouse.govv> said:
>The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
>email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone who
>violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states you cant
>mislead will be guilty of using a false name,
ROTF,LMAO! If you can't be bothered to read your provider's AUP/TOS, then
you should take the responsibility for the consequences. And even if *YOU*
don't know how to add a few words to your sig[1], plenty of others do.
>If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
>horrid precedent!!
A conviction would not be a horrible precedent, although I certainly
wouldn't mind seeing a conviction on multiple charges.
[1] If you had one, which you don't.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
_ Prof. Jonez _
That's a bug in the keylogger software ...
_ Prof. Jonez _
Is there any proof that the accused even "clicked the box" ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In <retard-29046E....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, on
> 05/19/2008
> at 06:44 PM, MB <ret...@whittehouse.govv> said:
>
>> The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
>> email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone
>> who violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states
>> you cant mislead will be guilty of using a false name,
>
> ROTF,LMAO! If you can't be bothered to read your provider's AUP/TOS,
What makes you think an AU Policy should have criminal penalties?
> then you should take the responsibility for the consequences. And
> even if *YOU* don't know how to add a few words to your sig[1],
> plenty of others do.
So you support the Criminal prosecution of ISP's that violate their
own AUP/TOS, eh?
>
>> If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
>> horrid precedent!!
>
> A conviction would not be a horrible precedent, although I certainly
> wouldn't mind seeing a conviction on multiple charges.
So you support the criminal prosecutions and any convictions against
the U$ Telecoms who violated their Terms of Service by disclosing
millions of private party records to the Criminal Bu$h Administration, eh?
NOTE: By replying to this posting you agree to be bound by the
following Use Policy / Contract --
1) You, the respondant, must only type with your right hand.
2) You, the respondant, must ram a dildo up your ass with
your left hand whilst typing.
3) Failure to abide by this contract shall be deemed a Felony
4) If you don't agree to the above, then don't reply.
Now take Dick Cheney's advice and go fuck yourself, jackass.
Deadrat
in news:4832d8fd$3$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net:
> In <retard-29046E....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, on
> 05/19/2008
> at 06:44 PM, MB <ret...@whittehouse.govv> said:
>
>>The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
>>email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone who
>>violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states you
>>cant mislead will be guilty of using a false name,
>
> ROTF,LMAO! If you can't be bothered to read your provider's AUP/TOS,
> then you should take the responsibility for the consequences. And even
> if *YOU* don't know how to add a few words to your sig[1], plenty of
> others do.
>
>>If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
>>horrid precedent!!
>
> A conviction would not be a horrible precedent, although I certainly
> wouldn't mind seeing a conviction on multiple charges.
Oh, really? You don't mind the feds essentially enforcing a private
contract to criminalize speech? Why is that?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article
> <retard-303967....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, MB
> valid if you can just go to the last page and sign it without reading
> it?
>
> We can't force others to read or understand things. What we can do is
> require objective, concrete actions that are manifestations of that
> understanding. If someone willfully claims to have read or understand
> something that they didn't read or don't understand, there's nothing
> the law can (or should, IMHO) do to protect them.
>
> What does that mean? When you sign up for MySpace or an account
> virtually anywhere, you have to click a box that usually says
> something like "clicking here notes your acceptance of the TOS."
> Some sites habev an extra layer of assurance by not letting you check
> the box until you click the link to the TOS or scroll to the bottom
> of the TOS or the like, but they can't force you to read it.
>
> If you check the box without reading the TOS, you're setting yourself
> up for problems, since you don't even know what you're agreeing with.
> Why should the law protect you in this situation?
By replying to my posting, you, Lyin' Larry, contractually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
1) You will eat one pound of human excrement while
typing your response
2) You will do the above with a Chiquita bannana shoved
up your ass.
Failure to abide by these terms and conditions under the
penalty of criminal felony prosecution.
If you don't accept the above terms and conditions, then
do not post a reply. Your reply shall be deemed an acceptance
without modification or condition.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <69ggbhF...@mid.individual.net>,
>conditions.
Can you prove it?
>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>cognizant case for breach of contract.
Reality_CheckŠ
Cynic
>I'm writing this response without abiding by either of your terms and
>conditions.
>
>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>cognizant case for breach of contract.
You have just proved the point that the PP was making. Breaking the
terms of a AUP or TOS *cannot* result in any criminal proceedings
(unless the action is also against the law of the land), and is
unlikely to result in civil action either. The worst that is normally
possible is that you are denied the service you paid for.
--
Cynic
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 08:35 PM, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> said:
>Save it for your Tribunal you fascist swine.
Do you even know what the word means, tonto?
*PLONK*
Deadrat
news:390834pkag0qahoqj...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:07:24 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm writing this response without abiding by either of your terms and
>>conditions.
>>
>>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>>cognizant case for breach of contract.
>
> You have just proved the point that the PP was making.
Hardly. There's no contract here, for one. It takes two, and cyber
contracts require an explicit acceptance.
> Breaking the
> terms of a AUP or TOS *cannot* result in any criminal proceedings
> (unless the action is also against the law of the land), and is
> unlikely to result in civil action either.
And yet, Drew finds that her alleged breaking of the MySpace TOS not only
could result in criminal proceedings, but it *did* result in criminal
proceedings.
> The worst that is normally
> possible is that you are denied the service you paid for.
Ah, but normally teenagers don't kill themselves over someone else's use of
computer resources.
Seth
_ Prof. Jonez _ <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>>>>> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in
>>
>>>>>> That isn't a violation of the Terms of Service of the computer
>>>>>> being accessed, in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> This from the Cancel Kingpin of Censorship ... how quaint.
>>>>
>>>> Whine, spammer, whine.
>>>
>>> Die, Fascist Swine, Die.
>>
>> Anybody with a brain might note that all I did was _characterize_ spam
>> by providing a way to _quantify_ it.
>
So now you're claiming the right to try people?
Too bad you don't believe in freedom of speech (since all I did was
post an idea).
So either put yourself up against a wall and shoot yourself, or admit
you're a hypocrite.
Seth