
Teenagers who read news online may be a criminals, according to the DoJ (2013) - ColinWright
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/are-you-teenager-who-reads-news-online-according-justice-department-you-may-be
======
rayiner
The CFAA is a clusterfuck that has generated splits among the federal
appellate courts on what it means.

The Second Circuit, adopting a narrow interpretation of what "exceeds
authorized access" means, put it well:
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=117839932121315...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11783993212131547013&q=807+F.3d+508&hl=en&as_sdt=20006)
("Where, as here, ordinary tools of legislative construction fail to establish
that the Government's position is unambiguously correct, we are required by
the rule of lenity to adopt the interpretation that favors the defendant.
Santos, 553 U.S. at 514, 128 S.Ct. 2020; United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S.
39, 54, 114 S.Ct. 1259, 127 L.Ed.2d 611 (1994). We do not think it too much to
ask that Congress define criminal conduct with precision and clarity.").

Can't give the DOJ a pass here either. Prosecutors should not be pushing the
boundaries of creative legal theories; that's for defense lawyers.

------
phkahler
If violating a web sites terms of service is a felony, then the government has
delegated authority in defining felonies to every web site operator. That is
not appropriate.

This goes back to the old problem of identity. If people were identifiable on
the internet then web sites could easily blacklist or whitelist users and no
rely on ToS for things like this.

~~~
mtl_usr
I was once called "snobbish" because I used the term " transitive" while
discussing a similar issue with non-technical people in the legal field.

If only the legislator understood technology instead of simply using the
"everything is a contract" and the "website is like a house people can break
into" (failed) analogies.

------
DarkKomunalec
"And it’s no excuse to say that the vast majority of these cases will never be
prosecuted. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted
crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Instead of pursuing
only suspects of actual crimes, it opens the door for prosecutors to go after
people because the government doesn’t like them."

This should be branded onto anyone that ever defended an overbroad law with
'It'll only be used to go after bad guys!'

~~~
Chathamization
This is a huge problem with the U.S. legal system. A lot of common behavior
has been criminalized, to the point where most people could probably be
pursued for something. There's a general shrug about this, followed by a "I
doubt they'd actually go after you for that." But that ends up meaning that
authorities can target an individual when they want to, and since this is
often followed by throwing a lot of shade about the targeted individual people
think it's justified.

~~~
euyyn
What's an example of such common behavior?

~~~
ItendToDisagree
Off the top of my head... Distracted driving is a crime in many states now
(where distracted has been interpreted more or less broadly to include
electronic devices or even eating while driving). Having a phone playing
Spotify/Pandora/$X into your car stereo can be a punishable offense in MA, OR,
WA, NY, etc.

Just because there have not been actual convictions for said offenses does not
mean they are not prosecutable. Depending on the state, simply interacting
with an electronic device while driving (to change the station for example),
can be a punishable offense.

~~~
cr0sh
> Depending on the state, simply interacting with an electronic device while
> driving (to change the station for example), can be a punishable offense.

I wonder if these laws have an "out" for police officers while they are
driving...?

~~~
smileysteve
In Georgia, yep, police are specifically exempted. They can do whatever they
want on their laptops (or other devices)

------
a_imho
Isn't everyone violating the CFAA [1] already? It is not clear whether a child
is being prosecuted for this kind of specific tos violation.

[1][http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-
crime-r...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right-
now.html)

~~~
II2II
The point is that one law means that the age restriction is a standard clause
in most website's TOS, while another law makes it a felony for minors to
access website because of that standard term of service.

The combination of the two laws is what makes it different from violating the
TOS due to a clause being inserted at the site owner's own volition.

------
throwanem
This comes out of the Lori Drew case. For those unaware, Lori Drew, a grown-
ass woman, recruited accomplices into a weaponized catfishing campaign that
drove a 13-year-old to suicide.

That's apparently not a crime, or so I gather a federal district court has
ruled. I'm not sure I would want one to rule differently - there are subtle
and trepidatious ramifications here, and the social norms of online behavior
are as yet very ill defined. But this isn't the hill I'd choose to die on.

------
interfixus
> _In the DOJ’s world, this means anyone under 18 who reads a Hearst newspaper
> online could hypothetically face jail time_

Jail time? What is it with this American propensity for locking up more or
less everybody? As seen from the other site of the pond, it does at times sort
of beggar belief.

~~~
cr0sh
Many prisons in the US are privately operated (Corrections Corporation of
America is one of the large companies that run private prisons).

These companies then sell certain services to the public - such as
telemarketing (seriously). In other words, that person you're talking to in a
telemarketing context may very well be a prisoner in a CCA owned facility!

Now - prisoners aren't forced (?) to participate in these activities, but they
are highly encouraged; it gives them a bit of money for the commissary (very
small bit) and other things, plus gives them "job skills" for the outside, and
probably also a mark on their records for later parole review purposes ("hey,
she participated in this, and became a model "employee" as a telemarketer -
let's factor that into her record for an early release").

So - there is a strong incentive to participate in these programs. They aren't
limited to telemarketing either: If you can think of something which can be
done by low-skilled workers who are a "captive audience" so to speak, it is
probably sold as a service by these private prison companies to other
businesses.

For instance, another big one is "product assembly" (putting furniture
together, or electronics, or other similar work).

So - these companies - the private prisons - need more employees, right? You
know, to sell their services. These employees are very cheap (and easy to
coerce to work - after all, they are also prisoners!): Just pay lowest-bidder
for food and housing, then get 'em inside. Best way to do that is to lobby for
more restrictive laws, make more things felonies, etc...

Right? Understand? Kinda sounds like a form of indentured servitude, or
corporate prison slavery, right? Maybe because it is...?

Because that's how it really is here in the "Land of the Free! (tm)(c)(r)".

/USA! USA!, MAGA!, and all that crap...

~~~
scaryspooky
Private prisons have 7% state and 18% federal of the total population. Blaming
private prisons for the problems of US corrections as a whole is disingenuous.

[https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-
incarceration/privatization...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-
incarceration/privatization-criminal-justice/private-prisons)

------
hellbanner
Related (also frontpage):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14891301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14891301)

------
cardamomo
This is basically a re-write of this EFF post from 2013:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/are-you-teenager-
who-r...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/are-you-teenager-who-reads-
news-online-according-justice-department-you-may-be)

Previous HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398)

EDIT: Someone has updated the original post. Yay!

