Lori Drew conviction has implications for anyone who uses a computer

[Eric J in MN]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_re_us/internet_suicide

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

Ever used bugmenot to read newspapers online?

Ever provided false information about yourself in a web-form?

You're guilty of a federal hacking crime, unless this verdict is overturned by an appeals court.

[greguganus]

1. Did she know that the girl was mentally unstable? n/t

[Eric J in MN]

2. I don't know, but she wasn't convicted of a crime of cruelty...

...to a mentally unstable person.

Lori Drew was convicted of a federal crime of computer hacking, because she lied about herself on a MySpace page.

The problem is that millions of people lie about themselves at MySpace and other websites.

[greguganus]

7. You mean all those myspacers aren't models and airline pilots? n/t

[amdezurik]

14. well, not exactly

she was convicted of conspiring with 2 others to deliberatly set-up a false ID on myspace. personally if you look at their pictures they are not all that "cute' themselves, personally i would have had the mother locked away for a long time and the daughter in therapy

[Eric J in MN]

17. How about women who put "99" under age because they don't want...

...everyone to know their real ages.

Did they commit a crime?

It's a fake MySpace profile.

[amdezurik]

18. for published age?

sorry you are just grasping at straws trying to excuse that womans behavior.

[Eric J in MN]

20. What Lori Drew did was horrible, but the prosecutors in California...

...shouldn't twist a federal law against hacking to pretend that the law was meant to cover lying about oneself at MySpace.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Yeah, she testified that she did.

PB

[question everything]

4. If the girl was mentally unstable she would have done herself

sooner or later.

Yes, it was cruel. But we face cruel people every day and everyplace. The anonymity of the Internet certainly has contributed to people being rude and not thinking about it.

[pinto]

12. Geez. That's a pretty blanket assumption. Sooner or later she might have gotten some help.

And lived.

[JI7]

13. but this wasn't just some random cruel thing that happened

[tblue37]

28. Yes--and in fact had often been the one to give her her meds when the mom

wasn't available to do so.

[derby378]

5. Isn't that what all those endless "user agreements" are for?

They allow MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, etc. to wash their hands of you if you do something that sends the Feds after your hide.

[Eric J in MN]

8. The purpose of a website user agreement...

...is to warn the users of things they could do which might cause the website owner to ban them from the website.

Breaking a user agreement was never treated as a federal crime until the prosecution of Lori Drew.

[TlalocW]

6. Well, good luck catching me...

And my alias Don Keyface which I use in web-forms.

TlalocW

[Tempest]

9. How did you come to that conclusion?

Using Bugmenot does not violate newspaper's terms of service, nor does providing false information on a web form.

You need to read MySpace's TOS, which are extremely detailed on what you can and can't do and which was the basis for the guilty verdicts.

[catnhatnh]

11. And since when...

...did MySpace get to arbitrate what is and isn't a violation of Federal law?...I thought we had a legislative branch for that.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Using bugmenot usually means providing a false email address...

...to a newspaper website to access their content.

If Lori Drew was "accessing a computer without authorization" by using fake info at MySpace, then so are bugmenot users.

[Pithlet]

10. I think you're only guilty

if you've clicked on an agreement that's a contract stating you're providing accurate information, or that you're not using an account for fraudulent purposes. That is why Lori Drew is in trouble. She agreed that she wouldn't use the account to commit fraud, and then went ahead and did it anyway. Of course, many people have done such a thing. Most didn't do it to drive a child to suicide. If she hadn't have done that and drawn such attention to herself, she wouldn't have faced those charges. Now, the whole thing did smack of "We couldn't get her with the charges we wanted, so we're going to get her with this". That doesn't really sit right with me. Personally, I don't see why they couldn't get her with manslaughter to begin with.ETA I see what you're saying. It shouldn't necessarily be a federal crime. Yeah, I'm not so sure, either.

[Poll_Blind]

15. Eric J, I see your point but I don't think the Orwellian overtones are there.

  There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. And then there is court of public opinion. And maybe some extrajudicial bodies, too, which have no stated role in our justice system but which do have an impact. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but I am saying that's how it is.

  A person who did an awful, horrible thing, intentionally and with malice aforethought- against a child- was convicted on a trumped up charge mostly unrelated to the horrible thing they did- because no law existed to nail them with otherwise. This has been happening since before forever ago and it will keep going on, nomatter if Democrats or Republicans win, forever.

  Because this is how people, even societies, do things. They make rules for themselves which mostly fit. However, in some cases they don't have a rule to apply when something heinous happens. So they try to link the unpunishable crime to another, tangentially-broken law, which they can then apply.

  I really don't see the Orwell in this. I mean, I understand exactly what your point is and where you're coming from. But the reason this was done the way it was had nothing to do about busting you or I for filling out false information in a web form.

  Slippery slope and all that, but really, stuff like this goes on all the time in the legal system. If the girl hadn't committed suicide, would we be hearing about this? Of course not.

  But a full-grown adult meticulously planned to deceive and emotionally wound deeply a child with known history of psychiatric problems. They successfully caused so much hurt to the child that the child unexpectedly killed herself because of it.

  Regardless of laws on the books or not, when you do something so reprehensible- not just against your community's standards, or your state's or your nation's but something reprehensible even by the broadest standards of human behavior- you're going to get punished for it.

PB

[Nikki Stone1]

19. The problem is she didn't get convicted for "meticulously plannin to deceive and emotionally wound"

She got convicted on the charge of providing false information on a website.

[Poll_Blind]

22. That's how you bust someone for breaking a law that don't exist yet.

  When adults are directly responsible for the death of a child- who they intended to cause great emotional distress and misery- and there isn't a law that exists yet to make what they did illegal and the court of public is aware of the particulars and is calling for blood...well, that's when things like this happen.

  People who harm children in ways, malicious, ways like this ain't gonna skate no-when no-how.

  But to believe that this, as the op intoned, sets a precedent which might usher in something darker is...preposterous. If the case were about something different, I'd possibly be inclined to join in, in the hand-wringing.

PB

[Eric J in MN]

21. I admit that a prosecutor probably won't go after someone just...

...for using Bugmenot.

But what if a prosecutor gets a tip that a man is drug dealer.

The prosecutor is convinced, though in reality the man isn't a drug dealer.

After spending a lot of hours trying to get more evidence about the man's drug dealing and being frustrated, the prosecutor could use something like Bugmenot to nail the man, thinking he's putting away a drug dealer on an unrelated charge.

[Poll_Blind]

23. Ok, now we're talking. I think there are a couple of things which would...

...typically inhibit this sort of behavior although I agree you do have a strong point. Mostly, it's a matter of money and time and priorities and public opinion. Also, there's the matter of getting a warrant to actually find out if they lied and if they lied with intent to commit felonious behavior.

  While this could be the portend of something bigger and darker, District Attorneys have been doing this exact thing, as I said, forever.

  Think back...what did they finally get Al Capone on? Perfect example. As I stated, my only real disagreement with your point is that I don't see this as something new or cause to add another troubled thought to those we as Americans must push back or deal with on a daily basis.

PB

[charlie]

24. But this isn't like nailing Capone for tax evasion

It's one thing to use violation of a tangential law to force a conviction, but this is an elevation of a minor violation of a business contract to something punishable by criminal sanction. It establishes precedent and it's not good.

[Poll_Blind]

25. I think the concept that this court case establishes a precedent of some sort is distorted.

  This just simply, isn't the case. Not at this level, anyway. Initially, the District Attorney chooses who they prosecute in cases like this and for what and decide what they're going to allow it to be pleaded down to (if mandatory sentences don't exist) and how much time and money all of it will take and whether it will be worth it. This was the DA's office getting complaint after complaint and bad press left and right until they could come up with some law which this woman broke...and then put the weight of her real crime behind enforcement of it.

  As I've been saying, I see the points being made. We're all looking at the same article. But the point is whether to interpret it as something which might reasonably be expected to happen in a situation like this or whether it marks a departure which we might identify as having darker motivations. This case doesn't set precedent for anything, anywhere and based on the motivation for prosecution (which was chiefly public opinion), I don't see this as any change in the tone of American caselaw any way or the other.

PB

[charlie]

26. You're assuming DA independence

It's not DAs I'm concerned about so much as corporate bigfoots who own online services. They're the ones who can compel a DA to prosecute and are always happy to have another tool in their litigation kits. 1 year in prison and $100,000 fines aren't minor punishments, they're a heavy handed application of the law for such frivolous infringements.

[loudsue]

27. I only wish justice was meted out so prudently. The bush crime family certainly

has not had that experience.

[spoony]

29. Of all the evil things that woman did, they convict her of that?

Ugh. There should be a huge statue of her somewhere with the inscription, "this is the vicious bitch who drove a little girl to kill herself."

[PeaceNikki]

30. It's all they could and it was a HUGE stretch.

What she did was reprehensible, but there are no laws to specifically address her transgressions.

She may have a good case for appeal.

[Fla Dem]

31. You know what...I don't really care what they nailed her for.

What she did was despicable. For a grown woman to be so cruel to a girl she knew had self esteem issues, there should be a special hell for her. If the prosecution had to stretch in order to get her to trial, convicted and sentenced, I say congratulations.

[Crabby Appleton]

32. I agree

[Poll_Blind]

33. Ya, I agree as well. I can't find a defense for what she did. None at all.

PB