PDA

View Full Version : Annoying people on-line is now a crime...



novacain
01-10-2006, 12:53 AM
Looks like the Americans amongst us are in for some interesting times on-line.

The US congress has just signed a bill that makes anonymously annoying people on-line illegal.

So better start posting under your real names (and addresses) or the thought police will send you to goal for two years.

I must warn you all that I have a very, very low threshold for annoyance...

and these stupid laws are really annoying me.




"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

http://news.com.com/Create%20an%20e-annoyance%2C%20go%20to%20jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Blackroot
01-10-2006, 01:17 AM
As if the US would take their time and energy to send people to track IP's and arrest people for annoying someone. Somehow I feel that this is impeeding of my free speech...

Ah well, the US government may be a bunch of ..............s at times, but eh, at least we have an army... ... ... Dont know why that helps me out any though... Damn... What a stupid law...

Let me test it out:

YOUR A TOTAL LOONY BERSERK RABBIT EATING CHICKEN FRENZY DOUCHE! YOU WANT MY REAL NAME? WELL SCREW YOU!

Lets see if I get imprisoned for that? *Rofl*

VirtualAce
01-10-2006, 01:59 AM
That is a waste of tax dollars...my tax dollars. And it violates free speech. I will not use my real name in the net in any way shape or form...and no law in it's right mind should require me to. That's one of the top ten tips for being careful on the internet. Do not disclose personal information or any information that could lead someone to your real identity.

Just wait till some wacko ........es someone off and another wacko tracks him down via his real name and kills him. Then what?

Surely the US has more pressing things on its agenda than some dumbass law like this one.

One first ammendment battle and this law is toast me thinks.

And you really think the US has the time to track down if the person annoying another is a US-based IP?

This law essentially makes forums illegal. It's a load of crap.

Manaxter
01-10-2006, 06:14 AM
Thats hillarious! American stupidity at its greatest! I would say that it is an un-enforcable law.

Govtcheez
01-10-2006, 06:40 AM
Thats hillarious! American stupidity at its greatest! I would say that it is an un-enforcable law.
lol america!

This isn't going to stand up when it's challenged.

DrakkenKorin
01-10-2006, 07:06 AM
so does that mean that all the people on my space are going to be arrested!

i can't wait!!

Govtcheez
01-10-2006, 07:14 AM
You're a dick, drak.

-Kublai Khan

edit: Maybe this means we can arrest those Jamster guys :cool:

kryptkat
01-10-2006, 07:28 AM
And it violates free speech. I will not use my real name in the net in any way shape or form...and no law in it's right mind should require me to. That's one of the top ten tips for being careful on the internet. Do not disclose personal information or any information that could lead someone to your real identity.


Meow! agree!!

7smurfs
01-10-2006, 02:11 PM
And what, pray tell, will garuntee that the name one uses when flaming a person is, indeed, the name that was assigned to that person at birth?

PING
01-10-2006, 03:03 PM
I could very much flame someone from the computer at my college. Does that mean that they arrest my college principle ? That would be too good to be true. Don't the law makers in the United States have anything better to do..like shut themselves in the loo for a few hours !
-G.W.Bush.

Syneris
01-10-2006, 03:25 PM
This whole thread is annoying me! anyone who posts here without disclosing your true identity shall now go to jail.

bithub
01-10-2006, 04:37 PM
Can anyone post a link to the text of the legislation itself? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

CornedBee
01-10-2006, 05:24 PM
You're so dead, quzah ...

MadCow257
01-10-2006, 05:42 PM
This is one version http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109TfWrkv:e91030:
I think that is an earlier version or something though...

dwks
01-10-2006, 06:20 PM
From your link:

Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

MadCow257
01-10-2006, 06:45 PM
Gay, I searched cyberstalking

anonytmouse
01-10-2006, 07:17 PM
There seems to be no permalink for the relevant page (who would wish to link to legislation) but it can be found here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3402:) by following the links (Version 6->Section 113). The relevant clause is quoted below:


SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

---(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

-------(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

-------(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

-------(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

------------------`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

---(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

This ammends the Communications Act, a 1996 ammended version of which can be found here (http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf) (PDF). The relevant clauses are quoted below:


SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS

a) Whoever--
---(1) in interstate or foreign communications--

...

-------(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

...

(h) For purposes of this section--
---(1) The use of the term ''telecommunications device'' in this section-
-------(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act; and
-------(B) does not include an interactive computer service.

So clause (h) as ammended will read:


(h) For purposes of this section--
---(1) The use of the term ''telecommunications device'' in this section-
-------(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act;
-------(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
-------(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).

Assumably, this has the effect of making clause (C) applicable to internet communication.

bithub
01-10-2006, 07:26 PM
Hmm... isn't that a contradiction? Isn't the internet considered an interactive computer service?

JaWiB
01-10-2006, 07:27 PM
Wtf, so if I get on the internet intending to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" someone, then I'm breaking the law, even if I don't say anything?

The government intends to restrict free thought now?

novacain
01-10-2006, 08:40 PM
I actually think this modification is an attempt to expand the laws so VOIP calls (as well as mobiles and land line calls) are covered in the case of nusance phone calls.

The no conversation bit is for the 'heavy breathers'....

I don't think it would be applied/enforced to internet chat/forums but you never know......

Thought we could have a bit of fun with it....

bithub
01-10-2006, 09:08 PM
The government intends to restrict free thought now?eh? You can think whatever you want, the government can't do anything about it.

Jeremy G
01-10-2006, 10:15 PM
What makes hoax's so funny are the ammount of people who are completely clueless to it.

Bajanine
01-10-2006, 10:54 PM
I think they need to amend the bill, we should be required to give our complete name, SSN, and address.

;)

nvoigt
01-11-2006, 12:10 AM
As I don't want to have the marines and rangers over here in "old europe", I already changed my nick to my real name some years ago.

( Well, officially I changed it because the board would not take two letters as user names anymore, but that was just a cover story :rolleyes: )

kryptkat
01-11-2006, 09:27 AM
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

---(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

-------(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

-------(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

-------(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:


What? No nine month penalty for missing a period?

7smurfs
01-11-2006, 02:13 PM
eh? You can think whatever you want, the government can't do anything about it.
Conspiracy?

JaWiB
01-11-2006, 03:51 PM
eh? You can think whatever you want, the government can't do anything about it.

I was referring to the fact that it says, "whether or not conversation or communication ensues"

lightatdawn
01-11-2006, 07:04 PM
One would imagine that this is simply an overreaching blanketing bill in an attempt to make spamming and stalking through on-line means offenses that are more easily chargeable.

VirtualAce
01-12-2006, 12:08 AM
...which won't last past the first amendment court battle on this issue.

LoRdHSV1991
01-12-2006, 08:57 PM
lol

if this isnt a hoax

the US gov has made yet another bad decision lol

if its true
i can get so many ppl arrested lol

eventually the courts will not want any thing to do with this lol

bithub
01-12-2006, 09:42 PM
I was referring to the fact that it says, "whether or not conversation or communication ensues"That part's not new, it's been in the lawbooks for 10 years now. The purpose of that statement is to make it illegal to call someone up, and breathe heavily into the phone, or something like that. It has nothing to do with limiting your "thoughts".