Offensive behaviours - distortions

Careful WithThat Fake Social Networking Profile; If You 'Personate' Someone, You Can Go To Jail(TechDirt, 02 June 2010) - the article is critical of the offence: it should not be criminal to impersonate somebody on Facebook in California. I tend to disagree. Using the name of somebody can be criminal whatever the motives. French law considers that the simple use of a name is an offence, although a minor one. But the conjunction of using another's name with fraud notably is in most jurisdictions a crime; why not for a fake webpage if this webpage has not been intended as a work of fiction but as the description of someone's life and thoughts? Of course, torts may be a better tool to deal with such issues, but criminal law cannot be excluded per se.

On the other hand, criminal law cannot be misused just because the behaviour is wrong and does not fit other crimes than hacking for example. Mom Who Used Son's Facebook Account Found Guilty Of Online Harassment (TechDirt, 28 May 2010). what she did was hardly constitutive of harassment: she accessed his account, changed the password and used the Facebook account...

same for banning sentences or pre-trial measures, a "Guy Who Encouraged People To Commit Suicide Online Banned From The Internet" (TechDirt, 27 may 2010), but this is far too broad a measure

Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal

TechDirt, 5 April 2010 -

technology seems to make people lose their common sense. Would we agree to a ban on using the telephone because the offender committed the offence with it?

Copyrights bill in the UK

Sorry but don't have time right now to analyse:

"Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill" (TechDirt, 7 january 2010)

"UK Ministers 'Concede' Some Ridiculous Points in Digital Economy Bill In Attempt To Get Other Ridiculous Measures" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)

reinforcement what I said earlier "If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)

sex offenders and the use of social networking

Illinois Says Sex Offenders Can't Use Social Networks (TechDirt, 13 august 2009)

Funny side of sentencing

I found it really funny: a spammer realising that the fine cannot be paid by his insurance!
Spammer Discovers His Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover $6 Million Spam Fines (TechDirt, 3 August 2009)

use of technology at/after sentencing

Self-explanatory:

"Tracking Sex Offenders With GPS Isn't A Bulletproof Solution" (TechDirt 12 March 2009)

Sex offenders and the use of Facebook

Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer explained how sex offenders are banned from Facebook. "We have been working productively with General Blumenthal and other attorneys general to keep sex offenders off Facebook, and to assure that those who attempt use our site in violation of their parole or other restrictions are brought to justice. This is one of many measures that we continue to take to make Facebook a safer and more trusted online environment." (our emphasis - the quote is from "Report: 5,585 sex offenders purged from Facebook", CNET, 20 February 2009).

This answers my concerns when I first read the headlines in several newspapers. I wondered on which criteria Facebook banned people. At least it is after a conviction, not before a conviction, and on the terms of the sentence given.
However, I share one concern with TechDirt's author Longino: the ban seems to me very general and rests on the assumption that sex offenders will use Facebook ONLY to track down future victims. To make a parallel, it's like saying that each time they switch TV is to look for and at child porn or the like. Or that they enter a bookstore only to find filthy images. I find the assumption in violation of those offenders' most basic rights of freedom of communication. Let's be clear though: there is a possibility that Facebook or MySpace can be use to groom. HOwever, I think justice should have evidence of it (like where they log in) rather than accept a preemptive ban so broad it is forbidding sex offenders to use an important mean of communication nowadays. "Facebook Boots Off Almost 5600 Sex Offenders; Don't You Feel Safer Now?" (TechDirt, 20 Feburary 2009)

sentencing and corruption

Corruption not where you would imagine: judges seem to have sent children to detention centers more than necessary because of financial interests in doing so. How come the system was set up in such a way that corruption was that easy is a mistery.

"Corrupt Judges Sent Kid Who Made Spoof MySpace Pages To Detention... For Profit" (TechDirt, 18 February 2009)

sex offenders and MySpace

Two interesting bits of information here: 1) that MySpace does filter its users' profile to search for sex offenders; I can understand why, but this is a permanent ban or ostracism on those offenders based on the philosophy of no rehabilitation. It looks like excommunication except no religious belief is at stake. Do we have a right as a society to reach such extreme measures? Is that an acceptable cost to protect children notably against predators?
2) the reliability of profiles on MySpace: fakes are numerous and nothing should be taken for face-value...

"Raising Some Questions About Smoking Gun Sex Offender Profiles On MySpace" (TechDirt, 28 January 2009)

Forcing ISPs and others to act via shaming

There seems to be a trend here. Shaming seems to be a very effective method to force ISPs and others (search engines for example) to filter their contents and to stop retaining data. Or is it bullying or threats or mob's justice? The difference between the two may well be nault and this is worrying when are at stake human rights. Here, the independence and impartiality of the institution making the request and for which purpose (censorhip vs protecting privacy) are crucial elements to draw the line

"Is Public Shame Enough To Keep ISPs From Doing Bad Stuff With Your Data?" (TechDirt, 15 October 2008)

"Why Is Andrew Cuomo Pushing ISPs To Use Spyware On Everyone's Internet Traffic?" (TechDirt, 17 October 2008)

"China Adds Search Engines To Its Censorship-By-Guilt Plan; How Will Google Respond?" (TechDirt, 5 January 2009)

New types of sentences?

• First type of sentence:

- There seems to be a law obliging sex offenders to give their password to all their accounts. Two issues here: the effectiveness of the measure/sentence and the compatibility of the measure with human rights.
1) effectiveness of measure: depends on how sex offenders were led to commit their crimes. If they knew their victim in real life, I don't see how this would help detecting possible reoffending. If the internet is a first point of contact, then it might be useful, although is using their accounts the only way to commit crime?
2) the compatibility with privacy: giving passwords when accessing the internet is effectively being watched constantly when using the internet. Translated in real life terms, it is being monitored when being outside home where going shopping, talking to neighbours or just admiring the sky. In other words, the infringement of privacy is so strong, I hardly see how the measure can be compatible with right to privacy and family life (the two are linked in ECHR terms)
"Sex Offenders In Georgia Required To Hand Over Passwords... To Protect The Children" (TechDirt, 31 December 2008)

• Second type of sentence

Shaming the offender - a form of social control. "Better Response To Crimes On YouTube: Force The Criminals To Apologize On YouTube" (TechDirt, 10 June 2008)

Cyber-terrorism - possibility of death penalty in Pakistan

At first sight, for us European, it seems a heavy sentence that of death for cyber-terrorism. But it seems that the sentence is tied to a result: causing death of an other person, even it is indirectly by simply allowing access to computers. And death penalty is only an option, the other being life imprisonment. Comparing to the US regime, the US knowing also death penalty for murder, that is not so unreasonable. Note that Pakistan has not yet signed the Convention on cybercrime (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=185&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG)
"Cyber-terrorism will be punishable by death" (7 November 2008)

Sentencing/ preventive measures

Rare are the decisions on sentencing and preventive measures. Yet for cybercrime, knowing which sanction is most appropriate is crucial. Ban of computer use may seem obvious, but apart from the question of being feasible, lies the issue of the extent of the ban. The following US example is quite enlightening and maybe the judge could have done with a bit of common sense. Cybercrime may be different (although that is still argued) but it does not mean it should escape logical reasoning. In an alleged $90000 (about £45 000) in tax fraud in New-York, a woman was banned from using computers. A bit too broad a preventive measure; it's like banning somebody to travel around the world for having trespassed in a park...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/09/fraud_suspect_banned_from_computers/1256/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/010534808.shtml (11 April 2008)

and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/nyregion/10indict.html (10 April 2008)

Just for fun: reinventing sentencing one day?

The following article brought a smile: will the criminal system ever introduce a bootcamp for hackers? Never know but look at the following: "Korea's Internet Addiction Bootcamps Mistargeted" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/003003.shtml 20 November 2007

and what about sex offenders and the use of internet? " Is Banning Internet Usage For Sex Offenders Reasonable Or Practical?" 28 December 2007 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071227/152807.shtml