Changes

::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that?  Was it federal or state or both?"''.  If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}).  I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account.  If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed.  You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however.  The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer.  '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract.  Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization.  Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well).  Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''.  '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''.  I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case.  If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too.  However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read.  The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer).  Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object).  Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument.  And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs.  In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.

::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that?  Was it federal or state or both?"''.  If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}).  I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account.  If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed.  You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however.  The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer.  '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract.  Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization.  Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well).  Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''.  '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''.  I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case.  If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too.  However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read.  The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer).  Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object).  Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument.  And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs.  In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.

::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's.  On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation.  But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed.  That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden).  There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation.  As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court.  Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government.  Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business).  Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made.  Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost.  Extra bandwidth and storage space?  Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's.  On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation.  But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed.  That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden).  There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation.  As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court.  Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government.  Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business).  Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made.  Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost.  Extra bandwidth and storage space?  Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

==Please un-archive the current discussion==