What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- thinkingserious, on 12/01/2008, -1/+76"The charges suggest that anyone who uses a fake name to sign up for a Web service like Yahoo or Gmail could be charged with a federal crime"
Wow, that would be like 95% of the Internet.- combatchuck, on 12/01/2008, -0/+20I feel really sorry for that John Doe dude living at 123 Fake St. Beverly Hills, CA 90210.
- billbugger, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4If my last name was Doe, I'd name my son John. It would toughen him up for 'the real world'.
- fadetoone, on 12/01/2008, -6/+3It would have been more appropriate if you did something like 123 Fake Street, Springfield, AnyState, assuming the 123 fake street was a Simpsons reference. ...and if it wasn't, well, ***** it.
- waxoff, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4This might be my last post here...
- AtWorkSurfer, on 12/01/2008, -0/+9If waxoff leaves, I'm leaving, too. I'm pretty sure Digg will have to shut down with both of us gone.
- Barackalypse, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7I feel real sorry for whatever law enforcement has to trace back this proxy account only to find out it ends up at an unsecured coffee shop... that I've never stepped foot inside of.
- haikuFU, on 12/01/2008, -0/+18The ***** up part is this ruling is saying that if you violate the TOS of a web site, you are committing a federal crime. This is essentially allowing web sites to write criminal law.
I could put something in my TOS that says you cannot post on my forum and use the word "pancakes". If someone posted "pancakes" to the forum, it would be a violation of federal law. That is absurd.
What happens when a religious or political forum puts up a TOS that bans dissenting viewpoints? Anyone that disagrees on the forum is automatically in violation of federal law?- Trav1289, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6Waffles
- PaleoDigger, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0Oh..................FLAPJACKS! So there :P
- linagee, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Yahoo and Gmail will require social security numbers to make it super easy for the feds to track everyone.
- lokee73, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3457-55-5462
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Good, that would spell the end to their precious Yahoo and Gmail accounts, because NO ONE in their right mind is going to give a web site their social security number. Sheesh!! We could all use Obama's.
- Solkre, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Use this guys.
http://lifelock.com/
- combatchuck, on 12/01/2008, -0/+20I feel really sorry for that John Doe dude living at 123 Fake St. Beverly Hills, CA 90210.
- angesbiz, on 12/01/2008, -1/+20That is one huge document and scary actually... makes me wonder really how many internet users DO read the TOS of the services they use.
- Barackalypse, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2I presume that they are all unenforceable, either because the most questionable terms might be illegal, but certainly because the unencrypted coffee shop wifi hotspot I use in conjunction with the TOR network makes it nearly impossible to track me back down after the fact.
- lostarchitect, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4seriously? you do everything on tor? how can you deal with all the waiting?
- Kohaxx, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2So in this case, the young lady who killed herself was accessing a site that explicitly says it's meant for those over 18. Therefore isn't the victim also a criminal in this case?
TOS should never be put into law, that's just absurd, breaking the TOS means you get account banned and/or ip banned, not sent to Club Fed.
- Barackalypse, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2I presume that they are all unenforceable, either because the most questionable terms might be illegal, but certainly because the unencrypted coffee shop wifi hotspot I use in conjunction with the TOR network makes it nearly impossible to track me back down after the fact.
- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -21/+17Signing up anonymously by using a fake name is very different from using that identity to cause a young lady to take her own life through pain and despair.
She should be shot.- dasunst3r, on 12/01/2008, -4/+22No, she should be forced to live the rest of her life with the shame of being recognized as the cyberbully who drove a mentally ill person to suicide. Nobody wants to pal around with someone like that, and the rest of Drew's life is likely to be long and miserable. That's worse than a quick death.
- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -2/+9I said shot, not killed. Knee would be fine.
- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -2/+9I said shot, not killed. Knee would be fine.
- rushiku, on 12/01/2008, -4/+13"Cause", I take issue with this.
If I were to say "RealmDown, the world would be better off without you" would it "cause" you to pull out a rope and hang yourself from the nearest convenient point?
Probably not, but even if you did hang yourself, could we say that I "caused" you to do so?
Absolutely not! Regardless of my opinion of you, you will, or will not, hang yourself.
You will do it now. (he's not doing it...tap, tap, tap, is this thing on?)- WoollyMittens, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8You are oversimplifying things. She knew the girl was depressed and still she willfully caused needless mental grief. If I give a torch to a pyromaniac and tell him it would be best if he set your house on fire, then that would have been very irresponsible of me.
p.s. That burning smell is not someone baking cookies. - Wetzilla, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6It also isn't just some random person. This woman didn't make the account and just start saying mean things, she first pretended to like and befriend this girl, and then once she had her trust she proceded to tell the girl (who she knew had mental health problems) to kill herself. That's not the same as some random person on the internet telling another perfectly healthy and much older/more mature person to kill themselves.
- shalb, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2It's one thing to be suicidal, but it's a whole different story when someone drives you to suicide. The girl was already depressed and that woman decided to cause her even more depression. The woman created a false account with that purpose in mind. Why else would she hide her identity? She tortured the girl to her breaking point. It's a thin line, but the woman made the girl cross it. I think someone should turn around and use cyberbullying to drive that woman into suicide. Then she might understand what the girl she drive to kill herself felt.
- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -0/+5Malicious manipulation of a mentally ill minor by an adult to the point where the minor self-harms is a crime, and a despicable act.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1There are some issues about the responsibility of the mother here too. What mother would allow an known mentally ill child spend time, unsupervised, on the internet? I ALWAYS knew what my daughters were doing on the internet. The "family" computer was in the same room as the TV and within view of any of us in the house. If you want to hide what you are doing from even your family, something isn't right. There can be no assault if it's not allowed into the house.
- rabbitracer, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1yes all of what you are describing is somewhat criminal however it is not the facts of the case as testimony from the government's own witness showed that the mother did not create the account and was at most complicit in the acts of her daughter.
- WoollyMittens, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8You are oversimplifying things. She knew the girl was depressed and still she willfully caused needless mental grief. If I give a torch to a pyromaniac and tell him it would be best if he set your house on fire, then that would have been very irresponsible of me.
- waxoff, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3@RealmDown
The issue being raised here is not whether she is guilty of bulling this girl. Personally, I find her actions despicable, but they fall short of a crime. There were no laws covering what she did. So the prosecutor got creative with the law and charged her with hacking. Hacking is this case was creating a fake profile on MySpace. That's it. That's the extent of this charge for which she is being criminally prosecuted. That is scary.- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -5/+3Just because there is a not a current law she can be charged with does not mean it is not a crime. Befriending, betraying and bullying a mentally unstable child to the point where she commits suicide is a crime, period. The laws just need to catch up.
- waxoff, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6That depends on what you mean by crime. If you mean that some moral code has been broken I agree. If you mean a law has been broken, I could not disagree more. Yes, the law needs to catch up, but people cannot and should not be criminally charged with laws that do not exist at the time the act was committed. The prosecutor in question wasn't satisfied with that, so he stretched computer fraud laws to apply to terms of service agreements that we all click through when signing up for online services. This means that any rule any web site decides to create effectively becomes a crime to break. So let's say Comcast wrote a rule in their TOS barring people from using abusive language towards their representatives. The rule would now be criminally backed.
- rabbitracer, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3again realmdown stop inserting facts in the case that help make your point when in reality they are not there
- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -3/+1However you want to word it, my point is this:
She committed a crime for which a law has not yet been passed. She contributed considerably, deliberately, and maliciously to the death of child. At the very least, she should be ostracized, and IMHO having her knee shot out would not be an unfitting punishment.
- waxoff, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2OK, lets try this one more time. You are missing the central point of the article. Do you, or do you not think breaking the TOS of a website should result in criminal charges and conviction? This woman committed no crime as defined by law. Instead, the prosecutor decided to stretch computer fraud into the realm of creating a fake MySpace account. (She broke the TOS of MySpace) He has prosecuted this as a criminal offense and won a conviction on it. How do you not see the potential civil rights issues this creates?
- RealmDown, on 12/01/2008, -5/+3Just because there is a not a current law she can be charged with does not mean it is not a crime. Befriending, betraying and bullying a mentally unstable child to the point where she commits suicide is a crime, period. The laws just need to catch up.
- JackOfAllGeeks, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2She was convicted of "unauthorized access" because she used a MySpace account and broke their ToS. What she did with the account has no part in any of that, aside from the fact that she didn't give her real info.
- dasunst3r, on 12/01/2008, -4/+22No, she should be forced to live the rest of her life with the shame of being recognized as the cyberbully who drove a mentally ill person to suicide. Nobody wants to pal around with someone like that, and the rest of Drew's life is likely to be long and miserable. That's worse than a quick death.
- republicker, on 12/01/2008, -18/+3Well, we locked up Manson and he never killed anyone. This should be no different.
- awtripp, on 12/01/2008, -3/+6Charles? Marylin? Hugh? Patrick? James? Shirley?
- Chassit, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2There is no question here. Buried as a troll.
- awtripp, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1lol.... he said "Manson", I was being sardonic in questioning which one he was referring to...
looking at your comment history, if anyone is a troll here it is you.
- Chassit, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Wow, talk about a disconnect from reality!
- combatchuck, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4Disconnect? Charles Manson never killed anybody. He had other people do it. He's admitted that outright, several times, over the past 35 or so years.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2And so for that we should let him out? Is that what you imply here?
- lostarchitect, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2pol pot could probably say the same thing.
- awtripp, on 12/01/2008, -3/+6Charles? Marylin? Hugh? Patrick? James? Shirley?
- saltyjustice, on 12/01/2008, -21/+4hate spam? bury babyman.
- dilpil1, on 12/01/2008, -3/+15Or you could judge submissions based on their content.
- saltyjustice, on 12/01/2008, -3/+3or you can protect the integrity of digg by digging the original submission.
- SenorBabyMan, on 12/01/2008, -15/+1"I think when you read it, it will turn your hair white."
- nerdherder, on 12/01/2008, -0/+11Oh hey good your copy and paste still works.
- SteveMax, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2All we can say from that is that he's not using an iPhone...
- nerdherder, on 12/01/2008, -0/+11Oh hey good your copy and paste still works.
- nerdherder, on 12/01/2008, -2/+24Well internet, we had a good run.
- Zomgondo, on 12/01/2008, -2/+19I've been telling people for YEARS that surfing the Internet is only safe if you wear a properly grounded tinfoil hat. But do they listen? No, they never listen.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -3/+0Well you do know they outlawed common sense years ago. Your seeing it missing in Washington, you see it missing in corporate America, you see it missing in your local schools and you see it missing in many families.
Without common sense, and it's effective use, we are all doomed.
This is where the liberal mind set leads us; an ever decreasing standard of right and wrong. It's whatever they define it to be at the moment. Won't be long, and all this will not only be "accepted", but expected. - MemorabIename, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Haha, fool! Don your tinfoil hat and hope for the best. I'm living in a Faraday cage! Now they'll never find out that my name isn't Franklin Donahue von Hornmeyer VII!
- Zomgondo, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Except a Faraday cage blocks the normal flow of aether, which disrupts the normal patterns of energy flow and leads to a buildup of negative emotions. A well-grounded tinfoil hat keeps the Government's mind-control rays out without causing aetherial blockages that manifest as disease.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -3/+0Well you do know they outlawed common sense years ago. Your seeing it missing in Washington, you see it missing in corporate America, you see it missing in your local schools and you see it missing in many families.
- orthodoxDrew, on 12/01/2008, -12/+2http://digg.com/people/Nicole_Paraskevas_is_a_lyin ...
- JackMacBastard, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2And this is related how?
- martoq, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Totally off topic but still funny.
- Krakerjax, on 12/01/2008, -0/+35"Megan didn't always make good choices because of her ADD"
Because we all know, ADD has a strong effect on your ability to make decisions as important as opening a myspace account.- SLYK, on 12/01/2008, -0/+12Absolutely, I couldn-
oh look, myspace. - billbugger, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5Ok, i'm entering my real name... oh look, a flashy ad saying i have a virus.
- MetalNoodles, on 12/01/2008, -0/+17I think it is possible that she didn't make good choices because she was a 14 year old girl.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4without adult supervision and guidance. When we learn that parenting is a crucial and full time job!
- SLYK, on 12/01/2008, -0/+12Absolutely, I couldn-
- FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -12/+5The charges in this case don't have such dire implications that the author may have you believe.
This woman used the anonymity of the internet to harass another human being, and drove the other person to suicide. It was wrong, and she deserves to be punished for it. If you act like a complete piece of *****, in real life or on the internet, you deserve every bad thing that comes your way. Hiding behind the mask of the internet to justify your horrible behavior is unacceptable, end of story.- NoCommies, on 12/01/2008, -7/+2Children have been doing this to each other fro centuries before the internet. Fake love letters stuck in lockers, fake phone calls from the guy/girl you have a crush on etc.....
It is part of growing up and chidlren need to be toughened up in this country because life is goign to throw a lot of curve balls at you and you need to develop the charactar and self confidence to shrug this stuff off. - moxley, on 12/01/2008, -6/+5You cannot "drive another person to commit suicide"
Suicide is a choice, period - it is inherent within the definition of the world - suicide means to kill one's self. This girl was not forced to do anything, and was obviously disturbed. It's extremely sad, mental illness is a killer, no doubt, but this woman is not responsible any more than Megan's parents are.
What that woman did was disgusting, but she is not responsible for that girl's death any more than you'd be responsible for my death if you told me to ***** off and that the would would be better off witout me and I killed myself.
The fact that this ***** verdict sets a precident that completely undermines the core foundation of the internet is a travesty, and it will be overturned or legislated away - too may people are aware of how dangerous this is and are fighting it tooth and nail thank god... and I am sure that there are people within the government and fascist cops who would like nothing better than for there to be no more pseudonyms used online and to have verifiable online ID, but that would make the internet as we know it obsolete and unusuable and would turn it into something like AOL crossed with the home shopping network and would do so much damage to society that it cannot be allowed to happen.
End of story.- FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -3/+2Wow, you're so ***** clever, ending your post the same way I did. Really, you must be some kind of godamned genius.
There are always ways of finding out who you are online - you're very naive if you believe you don't leave any kind of trail around the net as you navigate and do things. If you act irresponsibly and people get hurt, then you deserve to have the book thrown at you. Doesn't matter if you do it in real life or not.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -3/+2Wow, you're so ***** clever, ending your post the same way I did. Really, you must be some kind of godamned genius.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0There have always been sick people in life. Part of growing up, and defining who we are, is our ability to identify "crap" and ignore it! I had to learn this long ago, on a school buss full of abusive senior high school students. I either believed in myself and not care what they said (and survive) or I become what they say, and not survive. The choice was quite clear.... I will define who I am, not them. Parents, if you want to succeed as a parent, teach your children to respect themselves, regardless of their path in life. Lack of self respect leaves them wide open to outside influence.
- NoCommies, on 12/01/2008, -7/+2Children have been doing this to each other fro centuries before the internet. Fake love letters stuck in lockers, fake phone calls from the guy/girl you have a crush on etc.....
- Aldhelm, on 12/01/2008, -7/+9If you have a child with emotional disturbance or is underaged. It's a good idea not to let them roam around the internet. Anything that happens can be squarely blamed at you.
Now leave your rights alone in a sick attempt to avoid your rights and responsibilities.- Clumber, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4Ummm... isn't being emotionally disturbed still a SOP for being a teenager?
Or have I now officially crossed the line into being too old to know what "it's like!!!1!" these days? Otherwise, I don't think you can single out parents of teens who are emotionally disturbed.. redundancy and all.
I have sympathy for parents of teenagers... when is it drama and when is it time to call in the straight-jackets? No idea how my parents walked that line....- Kzoo, on 12/02/2008, -0/+0Though I otherwise disagree with him, to put it simply, no, not the way Aldhelm means it. Normal teenage emotional issues are very different from true mental problems, even if they sometimes appear to be the same thing.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2So what would you say if a person in real life (not via the internet) pushed this young woman to commit suicide? Why is the internet being used as an excuse to act completely irresponsibly?
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -5/+0This was not this young persons first attempt. Don't you want to know who to blame for the first attempt? You seem to always want to blame someone. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
You are up in arms over this one case of someone being pushed to suicide, yet some of the biggest leaders in cause of suicide are drugs and homosexuality, yet I don't hear any clamor to stop these leading causes. You want to change the world and "save young lives", get the drugs out of here, and educate folks about the dark side of homosexuality. - HunterSeeker42, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2@comsense08
"Dark side of homosexuality"
lolwut
Don't blame anybody on her first attempt. However, these people willingly and knowingly pushed a young woman with issues (issues they knew about) over the edge of the abyss. If you could show that this is premeditated, then this is nothing less than murder 1. - AikoMiko, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4"yet some of the biggest leaders in cause of suicide are drugs and homosexuality"
No, intolerance is the cause. - GroddRWK, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1@comonsense08
i hope you're just trolling and not serious
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -5/+0This was not this young persons first attempt. Don't you want to know who to blame for the first attempt? You seem to always want to blame someone. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
- Clumber, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4Ummm... isn't being emotionally disturbed still a SOP for being a teenager?
- Fhwqhgads, on 12/01/2008, -7/+2http://digg.com/health/You_Could_Go_to_Prison_for_ ...
- miggie, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Reading this article is better. The layout is easy on the eyes. It's also easy to understand.
- ishkabum, on 12/01/2008, -8/+2tl;dr
- tekhna, on 12/01/2008, -4/+16Too long, hyperbolic, and badly written. He raises a few legitimate issues, but they are obfuscated by his ranting.
- beerock, on 12/01/2008, -11/+1like your comment.
stfu. - AikoMiko, on 12/01/2008, -2/+1Excactly. He doesn't see a middle ground. What that Bitch did was ***** evil, plain and simple. She deserves to be punished.
- maz2331, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Uh, PJ is a she.
- beerock, on 12/01/2008, -11/+1like your comment.
- Syric, on 12/01/2008, -3/+17The girl committed suicide because she was bullied. There's nothing particularly unique about that. I don't think bullies get convicted if their victims commit suicide. So no, I don't think that the bullying mom is really guilty of a crime. Not that she isn't a terrible terrible person, however.
Violating terms of service should not be a federal crime: overcriminalizing indeed. The terms of service are sort of a contract; if you break them they certainly would give the company a legal leg to stand on if they decided to take action against you. But a federal crime, in and of itself?- beerock, on 12/01/2008, -5/+2You're right, a federal crime would be extreme.
The total disregard for human dignity by the Anon. family should be met with local, vigilante justice.
They should be burned alive in their homes, and the video posted on YouTube.- billbugger, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Anonymously.
- sexybobo, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Because Anon has never bullied some one?
- AikoMiko, on 12/01/2008, -2/+1"The girl committed suicide because she was bullied. There's nothing particularly unique about that. I don't think bullies get convicted if their victims commit suicide."
The question is not if they get punished but should they. And yes, they should. Look at suicides among teens, school shootings and other problems and you will find much of it relates to issues of bullying.
I was being harassed in Jr. High by a ***** from the football team. He made my life miserable every day. I hit him ONCE with a hammer in metal shop and I'm the one who gets suspended. He got nothing for the suffering he caused myslef and others (other than 12 stitches and a headache).
But I was never bullied again. Good thing to 'cause I'd have made Barry Loukaitis look good. Bullying IS a crime.- IcedKasz, on 12/02/2008, -0/+0Do you realize how different your story would be if the bully had fallen forwards and skewered himself on a sharp piece of shop equipment, ending his life? The bully could have led to your untimely death, but you could have done the same to him! Don't put the blame entirely on the bully.
Also, couldn't you just have kicked him in the nuts, or something?
-KE
- IcedKasz, on 12/02/2008, -0/+0Do you realize how different your story would be if the bully had fallen forwards and skewered himself on a sharp piece of shop equipment, ending his life? The bully could have led to your untimely death, but you could have done the same to him! Don't put the blame entirely on the bully.
- beerock, on 12/01/2008, -5/+2You're right, a federal crime would be extreme.
- miggie, on 12/01/2008, -7/+9This article is hard to read so I'm burying it.
- beerock, on 12/01/2008, -5/+8More school, less Digg.
- momlyd, on 12/01/2008, -4/+7Okay, here's a radical idea; no unsupervised internet use for minors. Or, software on the home computer that blocks access to sites parents have not approved. That shouldn't take too long and it would keep responsibility for internet use where it belongs - on Mom and Dad.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Wait, are you suggesting making such measures mandatory by law? If so, that is a horrible idea. Kids would obviously find a way around these things (they already do). Then what? Kids will be kids. You can't save them from saying mean things to each other on the internet or otherwise. It is not the governments job or place to make parenting decisions like this.
- Traductus, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1lock them up in vault 101
- bogslug, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2Even better: No-one under the age of 21 allowed on the Internet, PERIOD. It'd be like a 24 hour orgasm, ice cream, AND the second coming of Christ, all at once!
- IcedKasz, on 12/02/2008, -1/+1How much is it for a copy of Net Nanny 2008? $40 for the latest version? Ah.
YES the kids could find a way around it, but it's not the smart ones we're worried about.
-KE- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Why aren't we worried about the smart ones? It's the smart ones who will figure out a way around such software and then sell their work around at school for $20 per person!
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Wait, are you suggesting making such measures mandatory by law? If so, that is a horrible idea. Kids would obviously find a way around these things (they already do). Then what? Kids will be kids. You can't save them from saying mean things to each other on the internet or otherwise. It is not the governments job or place to make parenting decisions like this.
- Doctoxicated, on 12/01/2008, -5/+7you can't legislate the many based on agenda's of the few, the system of precedent is a dangerous thing when some asshat gets a bee in their bonnet and decides to take it out on everyone else.
Guess what, Kids were killing themselves long before the internet!
It's asinine to post humorously implicate a new technology as the cause or means for a problem that existed long before it.
If I use a gun to shoot someone I did it not the gun. If I turn the gun on myself because I reacted extremely to something and killed myself it's my damn fault.
I'm no stranger to losing close friends to suicide and drug overdose but in the end it's all about them. - galv0, on 12/01/2008, -8/+2KILL YOURSELF
- NoCommies, on 12/01/2008, -8/+3Why was a 13 year old with ADD being left unattended with open access to the internet; that in itself is child neglect.
Wake up people, your children will disobey your every word when your back is turned no matter how much of an "angel" you wish to believe they are. Supervise your children and take responsibility for them and make them responsible for their actions.- billbugger, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1In this case, i guess the kids need to keep an eye on the parents as well.
- Supernovah, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Because every 13 year old has ADD and some get left to their own devices
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2"...that in itself is child neglect."
That, in itself, is hyperbole.
- elo91, on 12/01/2008, -2/+3if the fed starts seriously enforcing intellectual property laws then it's the first step on a slippery slope. we might be headed towards some kind of thought police. intellectual property laws are ***** to begin with, but the idea that you can be charged with a crime for not using software the way the owner of the software wanted you to, is pretty scary. i always thought that if you breached a eula, you would just lose the privilege of using the software. the idea that i can even be arrested (regardless of whether or not the law is actually enforced) for cheating at a computer game or posting misleading information on facebook is ridiculous.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0It will backfire on them as folks leave those sites and join the more conservative, freedom oriented websites. I have always said, and it applies everywhere, that if we fail to manage ourselves, we open the door wide open for the government to do it. Now we have a presidential candidate who has made it clear, he is more than ready to do just that! However, how does all this stand with the first amendment? Is that one in trouble too?
- Kohaxx, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Where are they going to get the resources? Everyone who uses the internet is a criminal then.
You have to be some kind of stupid if you give out your real name and address to any website that asks for it to register.
- Supernovah, on 12/01/2008, -3/+1When the value of protection passes the value of a life, you have a problem; United States.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Liberty is of greater value than human life, and at times that will be the cost.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1What???? protection of what?
- Halenthal, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4It seems like she was convicted of failing to follow the TOS of the website. Does that mean I could write up a piece of spyware, put that it cannot be installed by the end user in a EULA or TOS for the software (especially right in the middle of the EULA or towards the end-some spyware's EULA runs over sixty pages), and every time someone uninstalled it they could go to jail and pay some serious fines? What about doing the same for a virus?
If anything, the girl's mother should be charged with child endangerment, neglect and/or abuse. She's the one who knowingly allowed her child to *repeatedly* violate the TOS of the website, allowed her child to *repeatedly* use the website even though it had caused problems in the past, and let her use the website without supervision. The girl killed herself, that's a tragedy, but the mother is the one the blame should be placed on.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1No, no one should be charged with anything. As it stated in the article, this was a tragedy not a crime. This has gotten frighteningly out of hand.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -4/+4If I put on a mask and went around in public taunting emotionally unstable people to hurt themselves, you assholes would be running around with stakes and pitchforks trying to find out who I was so justice could be had. This is no different. I value anonymity on the internet just as much as the next guy, but I also understand that that anonymity doesn't grant me a license to act unlawfully or irresponsibly. The people who use the internet as an excuse to anonymously hurt other people are the ones who will ruin it for the rest of us.
- Halenthal, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5She acted irresponsibly, yes. Reprehensibly, even. But what law, exactly, did she violate?
...I thought so. She violated a web site's TOS, not a law. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2So now irresponsible = illegal? By the way, I hope you realize that if you went around in a mask taunting people (emotionally stable or not) you would be protected by the first amendment. Why on the internet does the first amendment now suddenly disappear? Does the first amendment now only protect people saying nice things?
Anyway, your example doesn't even apply to the case since the girls weren't trying to get Drew to hurt herself (another case already decided that).
Maybe next time you should try actually reading the article. - FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Irresponsibility to the point of negligence. If you think this woman should go unpunished, you are only contributing to the eventual downfall of the internet.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -1/+0She violated no law. Idiot yes, but the world is full of them. Hateful yes, but again, the world is full of hate. You seem rather worked up over this, but are you as worked up over the 4000 abortions that take place every day? This young lady had a choice. She made the wrong one, but the 4000 don't ever get a choice. I'd like to see as much anger over the death of 4000 babies as I see over the death of this young lady.
- oninbonin, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs sorry, you made me think of 400 BABIES! I got picked on when I was young, I got bullied, but did I kill myself? No. Did I got shoot a bunch of innocent people? No. Grow some thicker skin people!
- Kohaxx, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2You're letting the emotional nature of the act cloud your judgement. Law is meant to be impartial for this very reason, if you write outrage laws you make people happy for a little while, while royally ***** up everything.
Bullies in real life that cause someone to kill themselves by making them miserable aren't criminally guilty. The choice was still the victim's. Until she actually provides a gun for her to shoot herself or aids the suicide it's not a criminal offense.
- Halenthal, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5She acted irresponsibly, yes. Reprehensibly, even. But what law, exactly, did she violate?
- netneutrality, on 12/01/2008, -0/+9I don't think some of the commenters up above have read this properly. Read the PDF; it's better than the article.
The point is that what the defendant did to the victim, assuming the allegations are true, was at worst stalking and harassment. They weren't able to prove that those actions had broken the law. She was then criminalized *only* for violating the site's terms of service.
Think about that. Any site can make up rules and if you fail to adhere to them, even if you didn't know about them, it's a criminal offense.- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -1/+0Let them head in that direction. It will only throw cold water on sites that ever choose to exercise this avenue. Most of these sites have stock holders and don't think for a instant the stock holders will stand around while their investment turns into zero. They are all in this for a profit. Enacting and enforcing these laws, if they past muster with the supreme court, will spell the death for these sites. No one will touch them.
Its supposed to be against the law for kids under 18 to access porn sites. See how well that's working.
- comsense08, on 12/01/2008, -1/+0Let them head in that direction. It will only throw cold water on sites that ever choose to exercise this avenue. Most of these sites have stock holders and don't think for a instant the stock holders will stand around while their investment turns into zero. They are all in this for a profit. Enacting and enforcing these laws, if they past muster with the supreme court, will spell the death for these sites. No one will touch them.
- JoeVet, on 12/01/2008, -3/+2Why wasn't this person pursued under child abuse charges? This was intentional infliction of emotional distress on a minor leading to death. Surely some law applies without making this a computer hacking case.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3"This was intentional infliction of emotional distress on a minor leading to death."
No, another case already found her innocent of intent to cause harm. Read the article next time.- JoeVet, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1Some juries don't convict even given convincing evidence (OJ Simpson). This woman clear and intentionally inflicted emotional harm on a minor which resulted in the child's death. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how to charge her.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3"This was intentional infliction of emotional distress on a minor leading to death."
- opafaf, on 12/01/2008, -1/+0so many words...
- TheCake, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6This is a long and boring article which argues that no one reads long and boring TOS.
- kewlz, on 12/01/2008, -3/+1Is Tila Tequila gonna go by Thien Thanh Thi Nguyen now?
- oninbonin, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0I want some Pho
- magamiako, on 12/01/2008, -2/+3It's a shame that this woman would get off, the jury failed the poor girl who committed suicide over this. I'm sure the defense painted the girl as an emotionally unstable person who was going to do it anyway.
- wgchinn, on 12/01/2008, -2/+2So if you deliberately do harm whether you use a gun, a car, a baseball bat, or your hands you should take responsibility for your actions. So if you use a computer you should get a free pass? I don't think so. The prosecution is using a set of laws in which a jury can derive a verdict. If you don't like it have the laws changed so that anyone can verbally abuse you no matter what mental state you are in and it is acceptable. Do you see the morality?
- Kohaxx, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Verbal abuse is grounds for getting kicked out of the location, not being arrested.
If I'm in a coffeeshop and the barista botches my drink and I call her a failure and an idiot (which I wouldn't but hypothetically) they can kick me out of the coffeeshop.
The only difference here is that the harasser could come back after being banned under a different identity, in which case you would ask to have your information changed or hidden. This is no different than real life harassment.
What this ruling is stating is a sweeping and very imprecise non-solution to the problem. So we're all criminals now? Then what?- AikoMiko, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1"If I'm in a coffeeshop and the barista botches my drink and I call her a failure and an idiot (which I wouldn't but hypothetically) they can kick me out of the coffeeshop."
If you think that is the same as what that bitch did then you need to read more. She gained the girl's trust, formed an emotional attachment then caused as much emotional pain as she could. She literally told the girl the world was better off without her.
The closest legal argument for that would be shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Her actions were designed to inflict damage. - spectre_25gt, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Yet, for some reason, she was acquitted of those charges. Then they went after her with a ***** ruling that actually stuck somehow and could potentially have us all running from the law for no valid reason.
- AikoMiko, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1"If I'm in a coffeeshop and the barista botches my drink and I call her a failure and an idiot (which I wouldn't but hypothetically) they can kick me out of the coffeeshop."
- Kohaxx, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Verbal abuse is grounds for getting kicked out of the location, not being arrested.
- PennFarmer, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1I would like to point out that the defense argument and the one being used on the internet frequently that the woman is only liable for the TOS if she had actually read them is in fact a violation of US contract law and basically retarded. Ignorance is no defense before the law. Laws apply to you whether you know them or not.
Doing 75 in a 50 zone is not excused because you didn't bother paying attention to the sign. If you click "I agree" to the TOS you are bound by them (and EULAs and other contracts) whether you read them or not. Like signing a contract for a car or a house without reading it. You are still bound.
At the same time, breaking a TOS in no way rises to the level of a crime. EULA possibly as a civil case for copyright or other infringement, but TOS? No.- adam99, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0Testimony in the trial stated that the defendant did not click through the EULA, someone else did. So she never agreed to the EULA.
- PennFarmer, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Her use of the service constitutes acceptance of the TOS under contract law. Using my example of driving above, if she was a passenger and they switched out between speed limit signs, she is still responsible for knowing the speed limit, even though she wasn't driving when they passed the sign.
No matter which way you slice it, she is responsible for her behavior and for abiding by the TOS for any service she uses.
- PennFarmer, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1Her use of the service constitutes acceptance of the TOS under contract law. Using my example of driving above, if she was a passenger and they switched out between speed limit signs, she is still responsible for knowing the speed limit, even though she wasn't driving when they passed the sign.
- adam99, on 12/01/2008, -0/+0Testimony in the trial stated that the defendant did not click through the EULA, someone else did. So she never agreed to the EULA.
- donnie0darko0, on 12/01/2008, -2/+1This article reminds me of the guy on the street corner with the sign that says "the world is ending." I personally am not too worried about this issue, and find this chicken little alarmist yammering pointless. Assume the verdict is against Lori Drew, how much of this do you really think is going to come to pass? And if somehow it really does come to pass, so what? Anonymity on the internet sure is great, but how long did we really expect it to last? I'm not trying to be conservative vs liberal or whatever, I'm just being honest. The mask of anonymous may have to be pulled off. There are worse things in the world that can happen. Maybe now people will read the terms and EULAs of the things they use and buy, HORROR! I'm pretty sure I'll get dugg down, but I hope at least one person reads this.
- oninbonin, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1I read it! Actually there is some strange clauses in TOS's sometimes, people may get a kick out of how well these Marmots hide ***** in there. And maybe a wake up call to start reading the agreements!
- donnie0darko0, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1This whole case really struck a chord for me, it happens probably 30 minutes from where I lived at the time. Having dealt with similar issues as Megan, I can hardly see it worthwhile to leave lori drew unpunished. I value human life over anything on or about the internet.
- oninbonin, on 12/01/2008, -1/+1I read it! Actually there is some strange clauses in TOS's sometimes, people may get a kick out of how well these Marmots hide ***** in there. And maybe a wake up call to start reading the agreements!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is