WARNING: Don't Annoy Anyone on the Internet

[Henry II]

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that we have George W. Bush in the White House protecting us from . . . ANNOYANCE ON THE INTERNET. I guess sites like Usenet are outlaws now.


Someone Annoy You On The Net? Call The FBI

John Stith | Staff Writer

2006-01-09

There are many cybercrime issues facing the world today. Identity fraud, denial of service, hacking into national defense networks, etc. A new law however introduces an a who new aspect to cybercrime, one that goes above all the others. That crime is using the Internet to annoy others.

This is going to create a whole of problems for a lot of people. First, with almost 25 million blogs, tons of forums, not to mentions email and other routes, it becomes quite interesting. The applicable text of the law, pulled from CNET, says this:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

This portion of the bill was tucked into a large Dept. of Justice budget bill in order to slip it in and keep it moving through. Some may argue this could have a chilling effect on several aspects of the first amendment and in all reality, it probably won't hold up.

First, enforceability is going to be a major problem. Each case of annoyance becomes a federal crime. It would be difficult to conceive of the FBI or NSA arresting people every single time they annoyed someone. With millions of bloggers and even more commenters, there is no practical way to enforce this, none. There's just no way to do it.

Then there's the chilling effect part. This could apply to blogs, chat rooms, forums, and even newspaper editorials that took a perhaps snarky side of things. What about pop-up ads, and other emails one find annoying? They could all be included. This law violates the first amendment outright and when it's challenged, and it surely will be, then it'll be struck down swiftly. This law most certainly affects free speech and press, not to mention a number others.

While there are certain individuals who deserve not to be annoyed, this law creates an open-ended route that will halt speech on the Internet and that violates the first amendment. For a whole host of reasons, this is bad law. One can expect it to be challenged soon and then it will come down.


View All Articles by John Stith


--------------------------------------------

About the Author:
John is a staff writer for SecurityProNews covering cyber security.

More news_security_news Articles

[peter c]

Of course, this is ludricrous but
an open-door is all that is needed.

[img]frown.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]

[Henry II]

Annoy someone on the internet and get a reservation at the Guantanamo Inn. [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img]

[troutbrooke]

Don't blame me man, I didn't elect ANYONE in the U.S. government...

[Henry II]

Originally posted by drumming sort of person:
Don't blame me man, I didn't elect ANYONE in the U.S. government...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And, neither did anyone else. [img]mad.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 09, 2006 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Henry II ]</font>

[Vdrummer]

Actually, the former CEO of Diebold (the electronic voting machines with no paper trail used in Ohio and elsewhere), who promised to deliver the election to the Chimp did.

Oops! Would that constitute an annoyance?

By Brad Schlueter - just to be safe....

[zmorton]

Wow!

Yeah, that will never hold up against the 1st Amendment.

[moosetication]

Originally posted by Zak Morton:
Yeah, that will never hold up against the 1st Amendment.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm. According to Dee-Dubya, the constitution is "just a piece of paper" so I guess it doesn't matter.

[benrand]

And this has what to do with drums and drumming?

I'm sure Bush had his cronies "stuff" this in a bill at the behest of Diebold because they want to have a n in on the electronic voting so that they can steal inner-city elections...

What a bunch of horseshit...nah, it wouldn't be career lawyers at the Dept of Justice, it's Bush who is shredding the constitution.

I don't recall the outcry at Hillary having FBI files magically appear in her office...but hey, it all begins and ends with GW Bush, a guy thought to be a total moron by fucked in the head lefties but can control the entire 3 trillion dollar government with invisible robots.

He's going after Daily Kos, look out!

[Henry II]

This is all about George W. Bush and the republicans being the CORPORATE PIMPS that they are. Republicans are corprate pimps and this law is aimed at preventing disgruntled consumers and employees from exercising their first amendment rights to criticize big business. Big business, by and through the Republican party have taken over the government, bought it from the citizens, lock, stock and barrel.

And how did they take over the government? With the willing, even joyous unwitting support of Republicans like Benrand, who will stand by his (not mine) fascist President, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO! The Constitution and the 1st Amendment be damned! Bush already shredded the 4th Amendment warrant requirement.

Benrand, what does Hillary Clinton have to do with the Bush/Republican shredding of the Constitution? Admit it, Benrand, you were wrong to vote for this blistering jackinapes masquerading as the President. And, oh yeah Benrand, Career lawyers at the Department of Justice don't write law.

PS: Benrand, does this annoy you? I am writing this annonymously. I guess I've just committed a federal felony. But you're ok with that right, Benrand. And BTW, is Benrand your real name? Be careful about what you say about Hillary!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 10, 2006 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Henry II ]</font>