(visit the link for the full news article)
The U.S. Department of Justice is defending computer hacking laws that make it a crime to use a fake name on Facebook or lie about your weight in an online dating profile at a site like Match.com.
In a statement obtained by CNET that's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites' often-ignored, always-unintelligible "terms of service" policies.
The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," Richard Downing, the
The T&C of any website is the rules of that website, it isn't the damn law! If you break the T&C of a website, than the webmaster/admin will ban you or do something about it. It doesn't matter which website you are on, the law is the law. The admin should contact the authorities if a user breaks the law, but if I do a one line post (against the T&C of ATS) does it make sense that I could be legally prosecuted for such a stupid thing? It's the same thing with giving wrong personal details. If the admin doesn't like it, they reserve the right to deny you access to their services, but they shouldn't have the ability to officially charge you with a crime. It's completely ridiculous.
The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider,"
Gee, you'd think they'd have more important stuff to do
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but it looks like some sort of 'txt speak', there's another violation. You are one hardcore criminal!
In fact, as part of a broader push to rewrite cybersecurity laws, the White House has proposed (PDF) broadening, not limiting, CFAA's reach. Stewart Baker, an attorney at Steptoe and Johnson who was previously a Homeland Security assistant secretary and general counsel at the National Security Agency, has suggested that the administration's proposals to expand CFAA are Draconian. Uploading copyrighted YouTube videos twice "becomes a pattern of racketeering," with even more severe criminal penalties, "at least if Justice gets its way," Baker wrote.