Display:
Bill Thompson at the BBC

prosecutors in California have just charged 47-year-old Lori Drew under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for creating a fictitious MySpace account

The alleged facts of the case are appalling.  Ms Drew is claimed to have driven a 13 year old friend of her daughter to suicide by befriending, then rejecting her while pretending to be a 16 year old boy.

she has been charged with "accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress", because she broke MySpace's terms of use, which forbid "impersonating or attempting to impersonate another Member, person or entity" and "using any information obtained from the MySpace Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person or entity, or attempting to do the same".

The prosecution may yet be thrown out of court, and, even if not, is unlikely to have a wide-ranging scope.  But it may set a worrying precedent.

But the prosecution raises wider issues that should concern any computer user...since it opens up the possibility that acts which we thought were insignificant could be used against us in unexpected ways.
by Sassafras on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 02:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not a case of "acts which were thought to be insignificant".

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 05:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely. But it should be possible to prosecute her using existing laws, for which the fact that she used a computer is irrelevant.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 08:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
looking at that it's as if the computer misuse charges are extras on top of other traditional charges of harassment and abuse that deal with what she actually did.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But I think that's exactly the point of the writer Sassafras quoted: it sets up a dangerous precedent that could be used (without the additional charges) in other cases, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose in this case.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It looks as though the root of the problem is that there are no other criminal laws under which she can be prosecuted. According to wikipedia the computer misuse charges are the only ones being brought.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a rarely successful tort, and, even if successful, would result only in damages being payable.

Given the alleged facts of the case, it's easy to see why the prosecution is desperate to put her on trial, and, if found guilty, into jail, by any statute possible.

The concern is that the precedent could be used in a wider context.

by Sassafras on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 02:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it would be in Ms Drew's interest to be punished, because when I first heard about this it seems that several vigilante groups are queuing up to deal with her.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 06:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series