if your in the US and annoy someone on the web, goto jail. - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: if your in the US and annoy someone on the web, goto jail.

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    314
    Every country seems to have a number of questinable laws, its not a US only problem. As I said check out the RIP, the various laws passed across Europe, China..etc...

    Seems to be a global thing to come up with laws that make us all "safer" (at least in the mind of someone..)
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

  2. #42
    Senior Member Kite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Underground Bunker, somewhere in Antarctica
    Posts
    109
    This law seems unnecessary to me. This type of harrassment or abuse is presently dealt with by the people incharge of the website, or if it is really serious, the offenders ISP, correct? If your ISP revokes your access, you are pretty much dead in the water as far as annoying people goes, and the same applies to getting banned from a site.
    I know your type, you think "I'll just get me a costume, rip off the neighborhood kids". Next thing you know, you've got a jet shaped like a skull with lasers on the front!
    -The Monarch.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Kite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Underground Bunker, somewhere in Antarctica
    Posts
    109
    This law seems unnecessary to me. This type of harrassment or abuse is presently dealt with by the people incharge of the website, or if it is really serious, the offenders ISP, correct? If your ISP revokes your access, you are pretty much dead in the water as far as annoying people goes, and the same applies to getting banned from a site.
    I know your type, you think "I'll just get me a costume, rip off the neighborhood kids". Next thing you know, you've got a jet shaped like a skull with lasers on the front!
    -The Monarch.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,147
    Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, stalking and other nasty things. The problem is that the language of the part that covers "annoying" posts and cyber communication didn't limit the context. It can therefore be used without the normal controls.

    Kinda like the Patriot Act provisions.


  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,147
    Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, stalking and other nasty things. The problem is that the language of the part that covers "annoying" posts and cyber communication didn't limit the context. It can therefore be used without the normal controls.

    Kinda like the Patriot Act provisions.


  6. #46
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    792
    Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, ...
    I have not read through the law, but that is extremely disturbing to me: a sexiest law ?

    My guess is the cyber annoyance part of the law ( from what I did read ) will eventually be found to be unconstitutional based on the fact that it is written overly broad; void-for-vagueness is the term the courts like to use. But how many people will be hurt by it before that happens?

    The Internet is a great reference, a good place to get information, but never rely on just what you find on the Web, especially when it comes to the law. Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!

    Everyone here from the US seems to be speaking very generally, as if the law is the same throughout the country.
    Something to remember here in the US: each state creates and interprets its own laws, and the persons enforcing the laws are subject to their respective laws. What do I mean by this?
    Example: garbage ( my favorite example )
    Federal law ( statute and case law ) allows federal authorities to seize and look through your garbage, without a warrant.
    Many states provide "additional protection of their citizens" and prohibit or restrict in one way or another such actions. If your state has such prohibitions state and local officials would be tempered in such actions, but federal authorities, even within your state would not. They would be subject to only the federal laws. ( Exception: a local authority asks a fed to do it for their investigation, then the fed now becomes an extension of the local authority, bound by the state laws. )

    Another: my state includes both DWI convictions and refusals on a persons driving record. There may be some states that don't. ( but keep in mind, this too may change due to new regulations concerning commercial drivers licenses: it may become necessary for all states to keep such records )

    As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
    For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).

    Cops say later the reason was 'a random insurance/registration check' - this is a legal and valid reason to stop someone even if they have stopped no other vehicles that day for that reason.
    You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.

    I don't proclaim myself to be an expert in the law, far from it.
    I've just had reasons in the past to study things like this, thought some might now benefit from it. Personally, I'd rather be rebuilding my network.
    Remember,
    Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

  7. #47
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    792
    Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, ...
    I have not read through the law, but that is extremely disturbing to me: a sexiest law ?

    My guess is the cyber annoyance part of the law ( from what I did read ) will eventually be found to be unconstitutional based on the fact that it is written overly broad; void-for-vagueness is the term the courts like to use. But how many people will be hurt by it before that happens?

    The Internet is a great reference, a good place to get information, but never rely on just what you find on the Web, especially when it comes to the law. Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!

    Everyone here from the US seems to be speaking very generally, as if the law is the same throughout the country.
    Something to remember here in the US: each state creates and interprets its own laws, and the persons enforcing the laws are subject to their respective laws. What do I mean by this?
    Example: garbage ( my favorite example )
    Federal law ( statute and case law ) allows federal authorities to seize and look through your garbage, without a warrant.
    Many states provide "additional protection of their citizens" and prohibit or restrict in one way or another such actions. If your state has such prohibitions state and local officials would be tempered in such actions, but federal authorities, even within your state would not. They would be subject to only the federal laws. ( Exception: a local authority asks a fed to do it for their investigation, then the fed now becomes an extension of the local authority, bound by the state laws. )

    Another: my state includes both DWI convictions and refusals on a persons driving record. There may be some states that don't. ( but keep in mind, this too may change due to new regulations concerning commercial drivers licenses: it may become necessary for all states to keep such records )

    As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
    For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).

    Cops say later the reason was 'a random insurance/registration check' - this is a legal and valid reason to stop someone even if they have stopped no other vehicles that day for that reason.
    You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.

    I don't proclaim myself to be an expert in the law, far from it.
    I've just had reasons in the past to study things like this, thought some might now benefit from it. Personally, I'd rather be rebuilding my network.
    Remember,
    Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

  8. #48
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
    For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).
    and

    You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.
    Teach ME to discuss law without Mrs|ce present :P Thanks for the precedents on those, I'll look 'em up in westlaw.
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

  9. #49
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
    For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).
    and

    You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.
    Teach ME to discuss law without Mrs|ce present :P Thanks for the precedents on those, I'll look 'em up in westlaw.
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •