Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

It's a federal crime to use anonymous name online!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I have a green card and sometimes use this forum in the U.S.
I use mashup for pretty much everything, from forums to online gaming to membership on other sites.

Does it allow me to get arrested?




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
No, the amendment clearly states "or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ..."


Well, that's a vague usage. It's also very hard to prove intent though.


Originally posted by soficrow
Boy are you wrong.


Don't annoy me you anonymous poster.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Well, that's a vague usage.


That is exactly why I say this law will allow people to be arrested for anything.
Also what is annoying is a personal opinion. On could say that they find the use of text to expose government corruption annoying. *Poof* you're in jail.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Note: The law posted by Loam was done in March of 2005.

The updated (?) law contains the most recent wording.

It can be found here:
thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.03402:

But they haven't posted the full text yet.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
There's nothing to fear...because this law is so stupid that its clearly going to be removed by the SCOTUS, even the current/future SCOTUS.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I think this law is for phone calls/faxes etc. If you aren't dialing a number, then I don't think you have anything to worry about.


I think you're right, if you read futher down in the article...


(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.
(2) The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230 (f)(2) of this title.


And this is section 230 (f)(2)...


(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.


link



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Oh how did I not catch that.

VOIP... thats prolly what they ment with that...



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
It appears to be contradictory. The amended law would look like this (based upon the full text of the law located here (PDF)) :


(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section-
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
(C) in the case of subparagraph (c) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).".


So it does not include an interactive computer service, yet it includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted by the internet. Is that not contradictory?

[Edit: spelling]

[edit on 9-1-2006 by LoganCale]

mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 11-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
No, folks. It is both paragraphs...

It is in the manner I posted above with the irrelevant paragraphs removed...and of course, the last paragraph I did for ATS' benefit. It applies to them too...as well as ISPs...etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first "HERE" link was the amended version, and for some reason no longer works. The second "HERE" was the old version. The quoted text is the correct version of the language...again edited to omit the irrelevant stuff.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by loam]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
So...does this mean I can *69 a telecommunications person trying to sell me crap? and then hand over the company for imprisonment?

Too many big words for me to follow. I'm not a lawyer, ha.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
It means you have to identify yourself if you intend to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person. It also means ATS, under the right conditions, could get in trouble too.

EDIT: I have to also say that they still have to prove that you "intended" to do those things... Personally, I've been thinking about adding this disclaimer to my signature line:

Under Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, Section 223(C), LOAM expressly denys and disclaims any and all intention to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person, during all written communications delivered by means of the Internet. ALL POSTINGS "AS IS".

Feel free to use it....

...Of course, change my name, though...or otherwise, it really just helps me...


[edit on 10-1-2006 by loam]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Umm Can I change my user name to my real name? Oh and what if there are more then one person with the same name. I don't have a common name but I do know there is another one called by my name but she is like 30 years younger then me. And what about all those Bob Jones and Jim Millers, Mary Smiths, and all them common names. How will having your real name make you differant from the or 150 Bob Jones? And what about THEY that guy from missouri. How will they know when THEY said something?Oh and does this mean I can have Jerry Falwell or Paris Hilton arrested for annoying me? I could just see it now Paris Hilton sitting in the slammer for 2 years. How about this can I have whole corporations arrested? Now there is a great ideal. Lets have all the annoying corporations arrested and jailed for 2 years. Then maybe I could get some peace back into my life.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
One could argue that the presentation of an IP address, which is traceable to your identity, materially meets the requirement that you have disclosed your identity. A court could very easily narrow the statute in that manner. It does NOT say you have to give your "name"....only that you have to disclose your "identity".

Happen to know a legal definition for that? Believe it or not, I don't think there is one.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by loam]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
well I am changing my mood to annoyed.
Perhaps we should all just use our social security numbers as our online ID.

It makes as much sense to me. Can telemarketers and popup ads be held responsible. There seems to be precidence of annoyance related to them.
I can definitely see the potential here for trumping up charges against a free thinking anarchist online.

....and the hommme of theeee braaaave...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
another thing, define "annoying"...I'm sure plenty of folks around here find me annoying


doesn't someone have to press charges, or can the annoying police knock down your door ? Don;t they have more important things to do

:



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Happen to know a legal definition for that? Believe it or not, I don't think there is one.


I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think I'll rely on your opinion concerning whether there is a legal definition....While one may not be defined in the United States Code, I'm sure there is certainly an entry for popular law usage.



iden·ti·ty
n.

pl -ties

1. Sameness of essential character or aspect (collateral estoppel requires identity of the issues and the parties)
2.
1. Separate or distinct existence (when movables lose their identity or become an integral part of the immovable - Louisiana Civil Code)
2. Distinguishing character of a person; esp Information (as a name or address) that distinguishes a person (is required to reveal the identity of an informer) (but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(c))
3. The condition of being the same as a thing or person described, claimed, or accused (character evidence of a suspect's past crimes may be admitted to prove the identity of a crime's perpetrator)


"identity." Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, 1996. Answers.com 10 . 2006. www.answers.com...

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Jamuhn]
mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 11-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think I'll rely on your opinion concerning whether there is a legal definition....While one may not be defined in the United States Code, I'm sure there is certainly an entry for popular law usage.


The more appropriate source would be Black's Law Dictionary.

Additionally, without a statutory definition, courts decide the meaning of such words. To my knowledge, no court has specifically held upon the legal meaning of "identity".



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I'm thinking of all those kids on the internet.....what are they told....don't ever give anyone your real name, or address, ect.....
kids, by their very nature are annoying.....this might be a problem, does anyone want to change the advice we give them?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
The more appropriate source would be Black's Law Dictionary.

Additionally, without a statutory definition, courts decide the meaning of such words. To my knowledge, no court has specifically held upon the legal meaning of "identity".


Black's was my first choice, but my point is that there is a popular legal definition of "identity," which is useful when presenting before a court. That's like saying that the word "the" has no meaning until the courts decide what it means, when in reality it has a popular usage and understanding among the courts.

And I'm curious as to what your knowledge of "law" entails.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The government is seriously paranoid and this confirms it even more.









 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join