Originally, CFAA was intended to stop hacking related crimes at the relative beginning of the internet boom. Under CFAA it is "illegal to access a computer without authorization or in a way that exceeds authorization." This broad language, though it was helpful in including various forms of hacking when it was enacted, has some serious implications today. The problem is that the excerpt was never explicitly defined, which has led some prosecutors to claim that terms of service violations are punishable under CFAA. Such an interpretation would mean that anytime you violate that long agreement that you never read but always choose "yes" could, technically, lead you to a felony. Here's a couple notable examples:
- Under Facebook's agreement, users cannot "provide any false information on Facebook."
- Craigslist states that no user can post "false or fraudulent content."
- Pandora makes users agree to "not allow others to use any aspect of your Account Information."
- For you savvy, up-to-date people who read the New York Times online... you must "be courteous" and "use respectful language" when commenting on articles. (No trolling, troll.)
- Just in case some of you have an eHarmony account, you are prohibited from sending messages that are "sexually oriented." Sorry sexters...
- For a couple more, click here.
 |
| Swartz speaking out against government regulations of the internet |
Now why is this debate coming to the surface now if the law was enacted some 28 years ago? Some of you may know that the Reddit co-founder/social activist, Aaron Swartz took his own life on January 11 of this year. Mr. Swartz was charged under CFAA for providing government-related documents to the public for free, while the same documents were available previously for a small charge. According to his family and friends, the circumstances surrounding his death are suspicious, but many believe the stress of his trial caused him to commit suicide. For more information about his untimely demise, read this New York Times article.
Now to you... do you think that the government has the authority to charge civilians with felonies for simple terms of service violations? What about misdemeanors? How much control, if any, should the government have over the internet?
7 comments:
I feel like this is an example of an act that has a great, productive concept and purpose behind it, but in application is absurd. For example, being charged as a felon for "providing false information on Facebook," is absolutely ridiculous, because if I scroll down my Facebook news feed right now, I could probably find 15 felons in about 5-10 minutes. One way I could see to better this law is to make it similar to the precedent established in New York Times v. Sullivan (The one that set the actual malice standard). This way, for example, one could only be convicted on Craigslist or Pandora or anything else for purposeful "fraudulent content" intended to defame or harm in any way. Thus, petty misdemeanors and service violations can't be abused, but intentional, harmful fraud, which I think provided the real need for this kind of law in the first place, could be punishable.
There is no way this will pan out well. While I completely understand the desire to stop any illegal goings-on or even just eliminate the presence of trolls, censoring the internet in the manner this act proposes seems ludicrous and frankly, a little unjust. (Sidenote: I feel that censoring the internet in any way is typically a terrible idea, as it seems to violate freedom of speech in one way or another 9/10 times. At least from my perspective). On top of everything else that has been said, it is unrealistic to assume that people will actually read forty pages of terms and conditions agreements, tell nothing but the truth on facebook, or even conduct themselves responsibly online, so it seems that the problems and general burden of this act far outweigh any benefits.
The sheer pettiness of these rules, as brought up by Rory and Eavan, goes to show how the internet is viewed by many to be a free place that should have free information, even if that information is false. This goes along with the importance of free speech to America, which may be one of the fundamental rights that provokes passionate people like Aaron Schwartz to try to bend the rules in the name of the principle of free information.
Just following the pattern of SOPA and CISPA-like bills, this law, and the story of Aaron Schwartz, it seems like the government is not really understanding the idealism of the people who use the internet. Maybe the people who use the internet aren't understanding the governments rationale for wanting to have so much control and leeway for prosecution. To me, this might be because the internet, to the government, is a huge nebulous space of chaos in which any number of dangerous things can happen, and to the regular person, it's a place that exists primarily for their own benefit, a place to communicate and learn. So, the normal person wants a lot of freedom to get the most benefit and the government wants a lot of control in order to minimize the danger of all these people having so much freedom. These are just reasons I thought of the potentially explain the difference in how both the people and government seem to be reacting to the debate over freedom on the internet, which seems to definitely be an issue that a lot of people have strong opinions over.
This article really surprised me. So does spelling your name differently on facebook count as a crime? Because many seniors have done so in order to avoid being stalked by colleges.
Anyways, I agree with Rory's point that it is a reasonable law that is very irrational and simply dumb when enforced. Of course it does protect against potential hacking that may produce devastating results, but the fact is that it may punish a person with no malicious intent. In the end, the internet does need to be protected because the potential threats of hacking and scams are so great which has its trade-offs with individual freedom. However, to provide a different perspective, lying about ones name and address can also act as protection against such scammers and hackers. Therefore I see the government's restriction as apt while also agreeing with the other side as the law also, ironically, prevents protection.
You really think someone would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies? All joking aside, I am curious about how such problems are handled globally. A site like Facebook caters to several different countries. I don't think there is some kind of standardized internet law, so I'm sure problems will arise when internet crimes are committed in different countries (e.g. megaupload, wikileaks, etc).
Also, it's a good thing everyone reads and memorizes every single set of those "terms & conditions" before he downloads/installs anything, right? (sarcasm)
The spirit of this law seems very reasonable, considering the harm that may come to individuals as a result of false/misleading things being published online. However, it seems like it would be completely ludicrous to enforce. It simply doesn't distinguish enough between those that it incriminates--there is a tremendous difference between a hacker trying to steal someone's money and a teenager who makes a joke name on facebook. There must be some way to alter this law so that it acknowledges differing levels of severity when it incriminates people.
Post a Comment