DOJ: Lying on Match.com needs to be a crime

DOJ: Lying on Match.com needs to be a crime

news.cnet.com

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

Confession time ATS. I'm not actually the president of Izsexystan. My name is not Domo1, I am not a millionaire, I am not 6'2" tall and I don't really model for Calvin Klein underwear (professionally at least). Also my avatar is misleading, I'm not really a cat (just the cat's meow).

Why can't the internet remain the wonderful Wild West frontier it once was? Why must everything be regulated? I think anti bullying laws online are ridiculous enough, but now we have this? What's going to come next? Online fingerprints and retinal scans to access your email? I don't see how this would be enforceable at all because I guarantee EVERYONE lies online every once in awhile. I'm sure to be called a fear monger but I think this is a real problem and for once am glad for the ACLU.

news.cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Domo1


I don't think they can pass that law, it would be against the 1st amendment as it extends to written format.

I'd liek to see them try tho. My god could you image, if nobody lied on the internet? There'd only be 3 web pages left.

i will continue to lie

reply to post by Domo1


ATS's TOS don't require you to give your real information, so you didn't actually need to confess any of that to us. Facebook, however, and Match.com do require in their TOS that you give true information. The TOS are legally binding contracts (though I'm not sure how that works when you allow those under 18 to agree to them) and so if you disregard them, the site is allowed to take action.

Legal action, in my opinion, is taking it a bit far. Being sued because I don't want to admit to being overweight is stupid. There are also those of us on Facebook who use a pseudonym (Papillon Skeletons for myself) for work, writing, or just so we can stay in touch with our online friends without giving away our whole life. We should not be sued for holding our privacy dear.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I'm sure, if they could pass it, they would. Just another way for the goverment to try and get more control. Gee, you'd think they'd have more important stuff to do

Why would anybody lie on the internet anyway. I mean I just figured everything I read was true.I am rich , good looking and generally a wonderful guy just like all of you.

reply to post by bassman013


Oh I mean they could pass it sure, but one lawsuit to the supreme court would kick it in the can IMO.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I think 3 is being rather optimistic personally. We should all be able to lie online whenever we damn well please in my opinion. I just take everything I read online with a handful of salt. It's like meeting a stranger, don't believe everything they say.

reply to post by Domo1

The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider,"

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.

reply to post by bassman013

Gee, you'd think they'd have more important stuff to do

What could be more important to the federal government than total control of the U.S. population? The answer is nothing, what started with tiny baby steps has turned into giant leaps in terms of what they want to control and how there willing to ignore the wants of the people to satisfy the need for control.

Get used to it because it will get much worse before it gets any better, that much I can promise you.

From the people who brought us fast & furious. Anything to increase control. I just committed a thought crime.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Not only charge you with a crime, but a felony. I have probably violated websites T&Cs a million times by now. I just did it again with that exaggeration. Ruh roh.

reply to post by Domo1


Retinal scans, please keep quiet, do not give them anymore ideas. They have enough to be gong on with for now!. Well let us hope that they will be unable to, i think that it has become a pain in the butt for them as pretty much they do not control it, what a shame. Long may it continue!.

reply to post by Helious


I guess I wasn't completely clear. I agree with you 100%. Things ARE going to get worse. There is nothing the gov't wants more than complete control. I was just tossing in a little sarcasm there.....

reply to post by Domo1

Ruh roh.

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!

edit: Oh scooby doo! How didn't I see that.

?
This can not be true.
You're not allowed to lie on the interwebz!? They wish to make it a fellony?
Seriously, I think that is taking the whole 'control' thing a bit too far.

I know we are not supposed to have any level of privacy whatsover, but still...

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

edit: Oh scooby doo! How didn't I see that.

You had me very scared for a second there.

This is getting seriously, ridiculously out of hand.

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.

Emphasis added.

What with everything else going on, the tightening of the noose of government on practically every facet of our lives in order to both control and squeeze every bit of change they can out of us in various way, this is just another straw that makes me want to GTFO of here and go somewhere else.

It's all about A) control and B) money.

And we allow this to happen.

reply to post by Liquesence


Racketeering huh? Wow. I'm so tired of watching freedoms be eroded under the guise of protecting corporate interests and the children.