Web Impostors May Face Prison in California

[Sporkman]

Web Impostors May Face Prison in California

Internet users pretending to be others could be prosecuted—and sued—if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs an "e-personation" bill

By Olga Kharif
Technology

California Web impostors beware: You may soon be breaking the law, even if you aren't one of the perpetrators targeted by the state's "e-personation" bill.

The measure, which is awaiting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature, carries fines of as much as $1,000 and a year in jail for anyone who poses as another person online with malicious intent. The law, which would take effect on Jan. 1, would also allow victims to file civil suits...

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2010/tc2010093_672645.htm

[whiskeylover]

Would this mean we'd have to start using our real names on online forums?

Stupid Arnie.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I dont think its a stupid idea. Life on the internet is so entwined with our offline lives the effects of online life are huge. From cyber bullying to posting videos of you and an ex having nookie. Perhaps the internet shouldnt be 'lawless' as lawless anymore...

[YuiDaoren]

I dont think its a stupid idea. Life on the internet is so entwined with our offline lives the effects of online life are huge. From cyber bullying to posting videos of you and an ex having nookie. Perhaps the internet shouldnt be 'lawless' as lawless anymore...
Heh. I think it's a stupid idea for the same reasons. :)

We already have laws for this: Libel and slander. The web (or any other transfer protocol) is not a "special place" any more than a newspaper is or a fax machine. Lying to harm someone's reputation or ability to do business does not rely on a particular medium to be illegal.

[Brunellus]

Heh. I think it's a stupid idea for the same reasons. :)

We already have laws for this: Libel and slander. The web (or any other transfer protocol) is not a "special place" any more than a newspaper is or a fax machine. Lying to harm someone's reputation or ability to do business does not rely on a particular medium to be illegal.
A couple of things:

First, the law criminalizes impostors who act with MALICIOUS INTENT. So, to violate the law, one must impersonate another person online, and do so with the intent to cause some sort of harm. That would seem to exclude people posting under pseudonyms, because they would neither be posting as someone else, nor intending to do harm.

Second: The law discussed here is a penal law. The law of defamation (libel and slander) is tort law--the law of civil wrongs.

A tort is a remedy available to a victim to gain compensation for harm caused to him. Thus, if one is defamed online, one is entitled to money damages to the extent of the actual harm to one's reputation, as well as an injunction (a court order) forbidding the defamer from defaming.

A crime is a means by which society at large punishes behavior. When a criminal is convicted of a crime and subject to punishment as a result, it is SOCIETY'S interest in peace and order that is vindicated--NOT the personal interest of any single member of society. Thus, the punishment for crime is the confiscation of assets by the state, or the deprivation of liberty, or, in extreme cases, the deprivation of life.

Many crimes are also torts; but there are some torts that may not, in themselves, be crimes. For example: The intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought is the crime of murder, punishable by imprisonment or execution. It is ALSO the tort of wrongful death, for which the victim's family may recover monetarily from the killer. But a merely negligent killing, such as in an automobile accident, may NOT be a crime, and yet may STILL give rise to a wrongful-death claim in tort.

Here, California tort law may already give victims certain remedies against people who knowingly impersonate victims with malicious intent. Victims might, depending on the facts, go after impostors in tort by bringing defamation actions or actions for invasion of privacy (both torts). But the state could not, until now, prosecute the impostors and impose penal sanctions on them.

EDITED TO ADD: This post is not, nor should it be, intended as legal advice. If you need advice regarding your compliance with the law, or your rights under the law, please consult a licensed attorney.

[YuiDaoren]

A couple of things:

First, the law criminalizes impostors who act with MALICIOUS INTENT. So, to violate the law, one must impersonate another person online, and do so with the intent to cause some sort of harm. That would seem to exclude people posting under pseudonyms, because they would neither be posting as someone else, nor intending to do harm.

Second: The law discussed here is a penal law. The law of defamation (libel and slander) is tort law--the law of civil wrongs.

A tort is a remedy available to a victim to gain compensation for harm caused to him. Thus, if one is defamed online, one is entitled to money damages to the extent of the actual harm to one's reputation, as well as an injunction (a court order) forbidding the defamer from defaming.

A crime is a means by which society at large punishes behavior. When a criminal is convicted of a crime and subject to punishment as a result, it is SOCIETY'S interest in peace and order that is vindicated--NOT the personal interest of any single member of society. Thus, the punishment for crime is the confiscation of assets by the state, or the deprivation of liberty, or, in extreme cases, the deprivation of life.

Many crimes are also torts; but there are some torts that may not, in themselves, be crimes. For example: The intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought is the crime of murder, punishable by imprisonment or execution. It is ALSO the tort of wrongful death, for which the victim's family may recover monetarily from the killer. But a merely negligent killing, such as in an automobile accident, may NOT be a crime, and yet may STILL give rise to a wrongful-death claim in tort.

Here, California tort law may already give victims certain remedies against people who knowingly impersonate victims with malicious intent. Victims might, depending on the facts, go after impostors in tort by bringing defamation actions or actions for invasion of privacy (both torts). But the state could not, until now, prosecute the impostors and impose penal sanctions on them.

EDITED TO ADD: This post is not, nor should it be, intended as legal advice. If you need advice regarding your compliance with the law, or your rights under the law, please consult a licensed attorney.
My point still stands. Examined in another way:
Given that the web is not special to any other form of media, why should it be a crime rather than a tort to spread damaging information, or a specific form of crime to attempt to cause criminal harm via the web as opposed to any other medium?

"The web is not special" being my central tenet here.

[Brunellus]

My point still stands. Examined in another way:
Given that the web is not special to any other form of media, why should it be a crime rather than a tort to spread damaging information, or a specific form of crime to attempt to cause criminal harm via the web as opposed to any other medium?

"The web is not special" being my central tenet here.
Tort and crime are not mutually-exclusive categories. Each serves different ends.

Crimes are prosecuted by public prosecutors; torts, by private parties. Making tortious conduct also criminal makes it possible for the public prosecutor to go after the wrong-doer. Otherwise, a victim would be obliged to sue in tort on his own behalf.

This is particularly a problem where damages are too small to justify the cost of a lawsuit, and yet big enough to represent a hardship to the victim.

As to your point of "The web is not special," I can't really comment, since I haven't been able to study the whole body of California law on the point. But if the legislature wants to prohibit a very particular behavior, and the legislature is empowered to do so, and the act does not violate due process, then the legislature is permitted to do it. So, pragmatically, if people care enough about certain wrongs to legislate about them specifically, well...there's not much to be said about it.

[YuiDaoren]

Tort and crime are not mutually-exclusive categories. Each serves different ends.

Crimes are prosecuted by public prosecutors; torts, by private parties. Making tortious conduct also criminal makes it possible for the public prosecutor to go after the wrong-doer. Otherwise, a victim would be obliged to sue in tort on his own behalf.*shrug* I've not made any claims this relates to.


This is particularly a problem where damages are too small to justify the cost of a lawsuit, and yet big enough to represent a hardship to the victim.Nor this


As to your point of "The web is not special," I can't really comment, since I haven't been able to study the whole body of California law on the point. But if the legislature wants to prohibit a very particular behavior, and the legislature is empowered to do so, and the act does not violate due process, then the legislature is permitted to do it. So, pragmatically, if people care enough about certain wrongs to legislate about them specifically, well...there's not much to be said about it.
Nor this.

[Brunellus]

The question was asked why it should be a crime, rather than a tort. I answered the question to the extent that I was able.

[YuiDaoren]

The question was asked why it should be a crime, rather than a tort. I answered the question to the extent that I was able.
Nope. It was "Why is it a special crime or tort?" - though I did attend the tort angle exclusively at first.

California already has laws against doing these things in general, why does the web need special attention?

[whiskeylover]

why does the web need special attention?

Think of the tubes, man.

[earthpigg]

I'm a Californian, and I think the proposed law is crap.


California already has laws against doing these things in general, why does the web need special attention?

This.

Is it illegal, in general, to pretend to be someone other than yourself with malicious intent?

If so, no new law is needed.

If not, and if we want it to be illegal, then we ought to implement a more general law.

The Internet is not witchcraft, and computers are not wizardry. The code of Ethics we already have don't need to be modified.

One point of clarification I would like to seek:

Impersonating someone else and merely pretending to be someone other than yourself are not the same thing.

Let's say I insult a whole bunch of people and **** a bunch of people off under the name "earthpigg". Let's further say that some thin-skinned individuals feel it is "bullying" with a "cyber" nature, and that the local district attorney buys into this nonsense & feels he can prove my intent was "malicious".

Will it matter that "earthpigg" is not, nor does it claim to be, the name of any real person? as opposed to using "John Fredrick Jones" as my internet handle, which is probably the actual name of an actual person who is not me.

[Sporkman]

The Internet is not witchcraft

...nor is it a big truck.

It is a series of tubes.

[sanderella]

Brunellus I'm impressed with your knowledge. Thank you. :)