These forums will most likely be shut down.

[tommywishbone]

I better get a good lawyer.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It will be interesting if anybody tries to use this law in the manner some fear. I wonder if the courts would look at a law regarding stalking and deem it applies to a privately held internet msgboard.

I hope nothign comes of this, but it does need to be challenged in the courts regardless, because leaving it as it is opens up a whole can of worms.

 

[sdifox]

I am just happy this does not apply to me. So I guess I'll be the official annoyer. Blame it all on me.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: sdifox
I am just happy this does not apply to me. So I guess I'll be the official annoyer. Blame it all on me.

Doesn't apply to you eh? From outside the country? Or are you just so darn agreeable to everyone?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87
It will be interesting if anybody tries to use this law in the manner some fear. I wonder if the courts would look at a law regarding stalking and deem it applies to a privately held internet msgboard.

I hope nothign comes of this, but it does need to be challenged in the courts regardless, because leaving it as it is opens up a whole can of worms.

I agree in its current form it does, but I still think the intent was for a completely different form of harassment.

The courts will have to iron it out and make congress rewrite the law to define the goal of the bill more.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Mommy ! - He's touching me !

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87
It will be interesting if anybody tries to use this law in the manner some fear. I wonder if the courts would look at a law regarding stalking and deem it applies to a privately held internet msgboard.

I hope nothign comes of this, but it does need to be challenged in the courts regardless, because leaving it as it is opens up a whole can of worms.

I agree in its current form it does, but I still think the intent was for a completely different form of harassment.

The courts will have to iron it out and make congress rewrite the law to define the goal of the bill more.

a heavy rewriting is in order for that sucker. That's just plain irresponsible billmaking.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It will be interesting if anybody tries to use this law in the manner some fear. I wonder if the courts would look at a law regarding stalking and deem it applies to a privately held internet msgboard.

Depends on the judge. And by stacking the Federal courts.....


Well.....

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Mommy ! - He's touching me !

Oh shush... you know you like it. :laugh:

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Mommy ! - He's touching me !

Oh shush... you know you like it. :laugh:

And when it's MY turn, I get to use the Cattle-prod :shocked:

 

[techs]

OMFG.
How will they spin this one to include 9-11?

 

[sandorski]

neener neener neener

 

[Vic]

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

How do you define intent?

So, does this basically only include anyone who wants to remain anonymous on the internet?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

I wondered when someone would point that out. Though there may be a question of exactly what constitutes 'anonymous'. AT can more or less track you down, but any individual poster cannot, and I would have to check the user agreement we all 'signed' to know if AT is allowed to give out any real information to a poster who claims to have been 'annoyed'.

I agree there is little chance of much of this legislation holding up to court challenges though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Vic

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

How do you define intent?

So, does this basically only include anyone who wants to remain anonymous on the internet?

Where in my post did it sound like I was in favor of this law? I was just pointing out that you fools were blaming the wrong person. That corrupt prick Specter is responsible for this, not Bush.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

I wondered when someone would point that out. Though there may be a question of exactly what constitutes 'anonymous'. AT can more or less track you down, but any individual poster cannot, and I would have to check the user agreement we all 'signed' to know if AT is allowed to give out any real information to a poster who claims to have been 'annoyed'.

I agree there is little chance of much of this legislation holding up to court challenges though.

Technically, no one is anonymous on the internet, as everything goes back to IP address. But then again, you could be hacking your neighbor's wi-fi...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

I wondered when someone would point that out. Though there may be a question of exactly what constitutes 'anonymous'. AT can more or less track you down, but any individual poster cannot, and I would have to check the user agreement we all 'signed' to know if AT is allowed to give out any real information to a poster who claims to have been 'annoyed'.

I agree there is little chance of much of this legislation holding up to court challenges though.

Technically, no one is anonymous on the internet, as everything goes back to IP address. But then again, you could be hacking your neighbor's wi-fi...

Or use a proxy from Iran

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Man, you have some screwed-up politicians...

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Ok, I have to admit that I've sneered at all the "Patriot Act is eroding our freedoms" and "Bush is a despot" crap, because none of it has affected me, or anyone I know, personally.

But this...everything I say is annoying to somebody for fvck's sake! They're basically outlawing ME! This sh*t has gone too far...

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: sdifox
I am just happy this does not apply to me. So I guess I'll be the official annoyer. Blame it all on me.

Doesn't apply to you eh? From outside the country? Or are you just so darn agreeable to everyone?

Canadian, so I guess foreign. Seriously, all you have to do is have an offshore company setup the fourm and end of problems. Maybe it is time for me to IPO

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

That presumes that any given court agrees providing a once-valid e-mail address constitutes "disclosing his identity" (the bill does not say "anonymous"). Perhaps there is clear legal precedent, but I suspect this may be interpreted differently by different courts.

In practice, I doubt this law will be applied to forums such as this. It could be, however, and that's worrisome. It is certainly not unprecedented for an overzealous or unscrupulous prosecutor to abuse laws in unexpected ways.

 

[Future Shock]

Reason #87 why I am just so damned GLAD that I am living overseas right now...

When you get around to electing some responsible politicians back there, I'll consider coming back...in the meantime, EU passports are good the world over...

Oh, and while I'm at it, I just wanted to point out that since AnandTech is a MODERATED forum, the forums themselves COULD be liable for any annoyances and illegal actions - the thought being that with more pro-active moderation the annoyance would not have taken place (unless in a PM).

It's so tempting to just SPEW annoyances from this side of the pond right now, just because I can...but AT banning is probably worse than anything that will happen from this law, so I'll just savor the thoughts of what I COULD have said...

Future Shock

 

[Purgatory-Z]

This isn't going to hold water if properly challenged in court under appropriate circumstances. I read that article, and it seems to have been put in to help e-stalkers get what they deserve. Also, I wouldn't particularly blame bad old Bush for this one, since the article mentioned that Clinton did something like this a decade ago. He (Bush) likely thought the rest of the bill was worth the signing, or didn't read it fully. Again, according to the article, it seem like he can advise the Justice Department not to enforce this particular section of the law. I don't think this issue is quite worth making a big scene over...yet.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Purgatory-Z
This isn't going to hold water if properly challenged in court under appropriate circumstances. I read that article, and it seems to have been put in to help e-stalkers get what they deserve. Also, I wouldn't particularly blame bad old Bush for this one, since the article mentioned that Clinton did something like this a decade ago. He (Bush) likely thought the rest of the bill was worth the signing, or didn't read it fully. Again, according to the article, it seem like he can advise the Justice Department not to enforce this particular section of the law. I don't think this issue is quite worth making a big scene over...yet.

My mention of Bush was merely to show that the bill had been enacted. The person I blame for its existence is Sensenbrenner.