Ghost XFX

November 16, 2011 at 8:30am

...But will they get rid of hackers too? I doubt it. therefore, they can shove it!

We don't need the Feds to butt in on On-line affairs. I an understand the issue of this woman berating the teenager with a fake account. That's idiocy at it's very worse. But some people online protect themselves in the same manner, so they don't have to deal with hacked accounts and other spam and phishing issues...

 

Instead of Online problems, they need to dump Eric Holder on his head for his part in "Fast and Furious". Deal with that first, then come back to the Net world.

Ghok

November 15, 2011 at 7:15pm

Why doesn't this Myspace case not fall under some sort of harassment law? The woman purposely misled and hurt this girl who ended up killing herself as a result. What does it matter that it was on a computer? And if we do need a new law to stop this type of harassment, then make one specifically for that. The idea that we need a law that makes it illegal to violate TOS is MADNESS. It's hard to believe that anyone would even try that... it sure would benefit a lot of people with deep pockets (I'm just sayin').

tornato7

November 15, 2011 at 6:14pm

I'm going tostart a site with a 500 page ToS after this, and one of the clauses will say 'by agreeing to this you hereby relinquish all of your worldly possesions to the site's owner.' This could work out.

kiaghi7

November 15, 2011 at 3:38pm

This will -=NEVER=- fly, no matter how draconian this regime's "department of injustice" wants to be...

 

First, they could with such a preposterous law, penalize all the "G.I.R.L." (Guy In Real Life) players out there, of which there are many, and I will attest that I've made several female characters for online games, however I've never represented myself as a female.

 

Anyway, the ridiculousness of it exceeds all reasonable measure or ability to even remotely enforce.

 

 

More over, a Terms of Service AGREEMENT is precisely that, an agreement between two or more individuals and/or entities. It in no way is legally binding or punishable under the law because it is nothing more than its name suggests, an agreement. It is effectively a set of ground-rules agreed to by both sides, that so long as the end-user behaves they will have access to the provider's product and/or service.

The courts have long since weighed in on this, TOS agreements are not legally binding nor punishable under the law for failures ON EITHER PART to met the stipulations of the agreement.

aarcane

November 15, 2011 at 2:50pm

That's absolute rubbish.  In our nation, we don't mix civil and criminal law.  TOS is closely related to (unenforcable) contract law, which is CIVIL.  Prosecution is used in CRIMINAL law cases.  That's like saying we should round up everyone who's ever given a coupon they didn't want to a friend and throw them in jail.  That's like saying we should take every contractor who's ever failed to finish on time and on budget and imprison them.  That's like saying everyone whose ever done something silly and gotten a warning notice on their door from management and lock them up.

EULAs and TOS' are a fluster-cuck when it comes to enforcability in the US.  Many of the terms in most TOS' would likely not hold up in court anyway, Especially those the DOJ wants to use to prosecute on.

ShyLinuxGuy

November 15, 2011 at 2:29pm

If the DoJ is spending its time pursuing this bullsh!t (such as someone lying about how much they weigh, where they work, etc) then it's pretty obvious they have nothing better to do, and thus the employees participating in this do not need a job. There are always things that are considered "illegal", but then the courts (most, anyway) look down on *really* petty offenses. If someone abuses the ToS to say, gather information off of a social network site en masse, then yes, it's something the DoJ may want to look into. But if someone is fibbing on Facebook, and they make a big deal about it, then it's time to add more people to the unemployment statistic =P

Bad Kharma

November 15, 2011 at 2:18pm

Jumping from a civil case to a criminal one is a great stretch of the imagination and of the law. Does this mean that every celebrity who operates under a stage name is also a target for prosecution?

 

I do use usernames like Bad Kharma, not because I am afraid of what I say, but because idiots like Anonymous and their friends are petty individuals and prefer to remain as anomyous as I can rather than make it easier for them to find me or more importantly, my computer.

0ly1r3m@1ns

November 15, 2011 at 1:44pm

hey anonymouse hey boy i got some thing for you to hack!

 

this law really pisses me off i use lots of fake names online, why? because i dont want them to know who i am and look at sony steam and all that stuff people hack it get it and id rather Mr johncockerdoodle on there insteed of my name.... DOJ this is the internet your not going to win

tkid124

November 15, 2011 at 12:49pm

 

At times laws do need to be changed, there have been horrendous crimes that have taken place, and because there was no law against it, the perpetrator was either convicted of a much lesser crime or was set free. Do states need anti-bulling laws, yes. Should we have laws that make elicit or unauthorized access illegal? Yes. Should the courts have a say in violations of ToS? Only in civil court, or criminal court but only for violating a government website's ToS.

The idea that online activity is somehow different than face to face and needs the DoJ to interfere with private business when they would never prosecute for a contract violation that was done face to face for the same violation is beyond silly.

The DoJ will of course promise proprietorial discretion. Then again, I think congress should take some discretion on this for them, by insuring that they don't have the right to file charges for just any ToS violations, only those relating to elicit or unauthorized access to a server, data, software, etc.

 

Nimrod

November 15, 2011 at 12:19pm

People, if this isnt TYRANNY than nothing is. Oops, i might be breaking the MPC ToS and that is now seems to be LAW.

 

Fuck the DOJ

zNelson24

November 15, 2011 at 11:59am

I think they're going about this the wrong way. Instead of prosecuting someone for violating a ToS, how about they prosecute the woman for, as this article has put it, "created a fake MySpace account and then verbally berated a 13-year-old girl, a girl who committed suicide as a result."

firefox91

November 15, 2011 at 11:24am

So if I root my new Android phone, Verizon will have me sent to jail. Great. I can't wait until Bubba asks me what I am in the tank for.

"Well, I rooted my phone"

"Well, I'm going to root your ass boy! Now come here!"

EducationalGeek

November 15, 2011 at 10:31am

Maybe the DOJ should go after these companies ala Facebook for screwing with people's information...

oldobamaliar

November 15, 2011 at 10:29am

democrats will be the death of this free nation. obama is the pied piper of destruction. when you wake up one day soon and are no longer allowed think or speak your own mind and the liberal "utopia" is finally achieved then will you fucking democrats be happy? democrats=comminust traitors

NineteenEleven

November 15, 2011 at 10:01am

i cant wait to see EA's new laws... i mean TOS. 

Keith E. Whisman

November 15, 2011 at 9:55am

So the only liars in this country will be those that run the government. The politicians will never be prosecuted for lying but damn, you better not violate the TOS that MS Typed up. 

Someone put a pink slip on Eric Holder's desk please. This dude needs to be fired ASAP. Eric Holder is the United States Attorney General and head of the Dept of Justice or DOJ (and not the Justice League.)

But anyhow, how in the hell can they think this is a good idea? These are fucking democrats that want to put the companies in charge of the government. If this becomes law then the companies will pretty much run the country, this is the exact argument that my liberal friends give me about what Republicans want to do but its democrats that are doing it.  

biggiebob12345

November 15, 2011 at 9:50am

Notice how prior to this administration there was no significant headlines for them?  Now they're doing something stupid on a weekly basis.  All part of the democrat's plan to power grab.

Blues22475

November 15, 2011 at 9:46am

Once again, this is our government trying to regulate something it clearly does not understand. Now when I create a alias online it's to protect my identity (to some extent). Now I have to put my actual name out there on the net because the DoJ?

Imo, they're trying to regulate something, and they fail every time they create some kind of "regulation" because it always contradicts something else.

routine

November 15, 2011 at 9:36am

Nice... so now companies write laws in the form of ToS.

And may I remind all you libtards out there, this is a democratic administration doing this.

Brad Chacos

November 15, 2011 at 9:19am

That's crap. TOS violations should be between the user and the company alone, anyways.

LatiosXT

November 15, 2011 at 9:06am

I think there's something wrong when the people who supposedly uphold the law change it so they can prosecute people.

rawrnomnom

November 15, 2011 at 8:56am

Ummm.... how bout you idiots stop screwing with the internet, take a pay cut, and actually fix something thats broken. The stupidity of political figures never ceases to amaze me...