NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty sure no one posted anything about this, so anyway...
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/us/28internet.html?ex=1385614800&en=660f9239fe3c6450&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg)

MySpace’s terms of service require users to submit “truthful and accurate” registration information. Ms. Drew’s creation of a phony profile amounted to “unauthorized access” to the site, prosecutors said, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which until now has been used almost exclusively to prosecute hacker crimes.

While the Internet’s anonymity was used in this case as a cloak to bully Megan, other users say they have perfectly good reasons to construct false identities online, if only to help protect against the theft of personal information, for example.

“It will be interesting to see if issues of safety and security will eventually trump the hallmark ideology of free, largely anonymous or pseudonymous participation in cyberspace,” said Sameer Hinduja, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida Atlantic University.

Andrew M. Grossman, senior legal policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, said the possibility of being prosecuted for online misrepresentation, while remote, should worry users nonetheless.

“If this verdict stands,” Mr. Grossman said, “it means that every site on the Internet gets to define the criminal law. That’s a radical change. What used to be small-stakes contracts become high-stakes criminal prohibitions.”

The judge in the Los Angeles case, George H. Wu, is to hear motions next month for its dismissal. Ms. Drew’s defense asserts among other things, as it did at trial, that she never read MySpace’s terms of service in detail.

“The reality, recognized by almost everyone, is that the vast majority of Internet users do not read Web site terms of service carefully or at all,” said Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School.

Now here is the potential implications of the court ruling.

(Section 2.3) Your use of Google’s ... web sites ... is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google ... You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if ... you are not of to form a binding contract with Google

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

I'm fairly certain that "legal age" is defined as 18 years of age (in the United States), so apparently every minor is breaking federal law by using Google...

I never read the ToS, now if they put it in comic form...meh, that'd probably be boring too.

OH NOEZ! I AM TEH CRIMINALZ!

I can't believe I didn't read that. Most of the time I read the terms and conditions though.

OH NOEZ! I AM TEH CRIMINALZ!

I can't believe I didn't read that. Most of the time I read the terms and conditions though.

Meh, I just find it boring. By the second word all I'm reading is "blah blah, word I don't understand, blah blah, legal stuff I'll never understand, ooo shiny object."

Meh, I just find it boring. By the second word all I'm reading is "blah blah, word I don't understand, blah blah, legal stuff I'll never understand, ooo shiny object."

But that ten minutes of boring reading is WORTH that five seconds of staring at a SHINY object!

Shiny I tell you! SHINY!:wink:

But that ten minutes of boring reading is WORTH that five seconds of staring at a SHINY object!

Shiny I tell you! SHINY!:wink:

Whats sad is that I can actually be entertained for the afternoon with aluminum foil.

Damn my ADD....

I'm wondering how the feds will be able to even enforce prosecutions on people who violate ToS... if at all.

I never read ToS...

But, trying to legislate the internet is stupid anyway...its impossible to enforce...

They should stop bothering, and get out...

*sigh*

Don't violate an internet site's TOS in a way that leads to the death of a young woman and/or involves some other horrific circumstances or crime and you should have nothing to worry about.

There was a tad more to this case that the TOS.

*sigh*

Don't violate an internet site's TOS in a way that leads to the death of a young woman and/or involves some other horrific circumstances or crime and you should have nothing to worry about.

There was a tad more to this case that the TOS.
The only thing that lead to the death of the young woman in question was her decision to kill herself. Whatever manipulations she was subject to, she chose to end her life at that point.

The only thing that lead to the death of the young woman in question was her decision to kill herself. Whatever manipulations she was subject to, she chose to end her life at that point.

Meh. You are simply using a more restrictive definition of "leads to the death of" than I was.

Perhaps you'd like to address yourself to my point -- which is that this was not a federal prosecution merely over the TOS of MySpace, but involved other circumstances that brought it to the prosecutor's attention.

Oh, do we have another lawyer on the forum?



Apparently not. Just more shoddy armchair lawyering. *sigh*

I'm fairly certain that "legal age" is defined as 18 years of age (in the United States), so apparently every minor is breaking federal law by using Google...

and you'd be wrong. Any minor can enter into a legal contract, but such contract is voidable at the minor's discretion until the age of 18

Now, to address the actual argument, while it's fun to read alarmist claptrap, that's all it is. Consider the following. Let's say...I own a house.

Now, I can set whatever conditions I want on whom may enter and stay in my house. I can say "nobody can enter". I can say "everybody can enter" and any line in between including "men only", "women only", "only to one armed blonde swedes with a lisp" or "anyone as long as they stay hopping on one foot, but permission is revoked whenever they stop hopping on one foot".

And if someone enters my property and doesn't fulfill whatever criteria I choose to place on those whom may be given permission to enter my property, that person is a trespasser. And that's a crime.

Why the hell should it be ANY different for server space?

Oh, do we have another lawyer on the forum?



Apparently not. Just more shoddy armchair lawyering. *sigh*
What are you whining about? Shoddy armchair "X"ing is the entire purpose of NSG.

Now, to address the actual argument, while it's fun to read alarmist claptrap, that's all it is. Consider the following. Let's say...I own a house.

Now, I can set whatever conditions I want on whom may enter and stay in my house. I can say "nobody can enter". I can say "everybody can enter" and any line in between including "men only", "women only", "only to one armed blonde swedes with a lisp" or "anyone as long as they stay hopping on one foot, but permission is revoked whenever they stop hopping on one foot".

And if someone enters my property and doesn't fulfill whatever criteria I choose to place on those whom may be given permission to enter my property, that person is a trespasser. And that's a crime.

Why the hell should it be ANY different for server space?

But, it begs the question of, what are you going to do about it? Prosecute for not hopping on one foot? lol

But, beyond that, the Server Spaces, such as Google, or This one...Are public spaces, so Trespassers are kind of a moot point...

What are you whining about? Shoddy armchair "X"ing is the entire purpose of NSG.

some of us actually like to know what the fuck we're talking about.

Shocking, I know.

What are you whining about? Shoddy armchair "X"ing is the entire purpose of NSG.

First of all...thank you for spelling 'whining' right. I don't know how so many people get it wrong.

Secondly...I'm not sure why people think crabcakes are so good. I love crab, but crabcakes give me a tummy ache.

Thirdly, you make an excellent point, but I'm still going to mock people who think they can skip years of training and tell us how the law works.

some of us actually like to know what the fuck we're talking about.

Shocking, I know.

Blasphemy! I refuse to accept this! lol

But, it begs the question of, what are you going to do about it? Prosecute for not hopping on one foot? lol

no. Prosecute you for trespassing. Which is exactly what you would be doing if you were on my property without my permission.

But, beyond that, the Server Spaces, such as Google, or This one...Are public spaces, so Trespassers are kind of a moot point...

um...no. No not even close. Can't even begin to explain how wrong that is.

Wait... so what does that mean?

it means...exactly what I said. There's nothing particularly vague about that sentence.

no. Prosecute you for trespassing.



um...no. No not even close. Can't even begin to explain how wrong that is.

So...your saying that Google doesnt offer its services to the public? Or Nationstates doesnt offer its services to the public?

And...I suppose you could prosecute for trespassing, but, Win? I dont think so...How are you going to prove they stopped Hopping on one Foot? or that they were even there in the first place?

Secondly...I'm not sure why people think crabcakes are so good. I love crab, but crabcakes give me a tummy ache.

I'm not to sure how this came up, but I like crabcakes. I might just make them for dinner tonight.

Its becoming apperant that all I need to do to become a lawyer is claim I understand legal stuff on NSG.


Fuck law school, this seems cheaper.

it means...exactly what I said. There's nothing particularly vague about that sentence.

To add to what my learned friend has pointed out...the only exception to the ability of a minor to void a contract is for the necessities of life. So you can't recover money for the playstation you bought your 16-year old babysitter in return for babysitting that never happened...but if she relied on you to provide her with basic food and shelter, you can sue her ass if you're not her parent.

But good rule of thumb is...don't enter into a contract with a minor.

So...your saying that Google doesnt offer its services to the public? Or Nationstates doesnt offer its services to the public?

Why would you assume "offers its service to the public" equates to making it a public service. A supermarket offers its service to the public, doesn't make the supermarket public property. It's still private property

And...I suppose you could prosecute for trespassing, but, Win? I dont think so...How are you going to prove they stopped Hopping on one Foot? or that they were even there in the first place?

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Its becoming apperant that all I need to do to become a lawyer is claim I understand legal stuff on NSG.


Fuck law school, this seems cheaper.

For sure.

But no one is going to pay you $250 an hour for it.

some of us actually like to know what the fuck we're talking about.

Shocking, I know.
I suppose, then, that you have a formal background in cultural anthropology, politics, religion and economics as well?
Besides which, I have a degrees in Legalologoy, Murderonomy and Internetosophy. I dare you to prove otherwise.

For sure.

But no one is going to pay you $250 an hour for it.

"But...but...I spent a lot of time on NSG pretending to be a lawyer!"

To add to what my learned friend has pointed out...the only exception to the ability of a minor to void a contract is for the necessities of life. So you can't recover money for the playstation you bought your 16-year old babysitter in return for babysitting that never happened...but if she relied on you to provide her with basic food and shelter, you can sue her ass if you're not her parent.

But good rule of thumb is...don't enter into a contract with a minor.

oh do we REALLY want to get technical? Alright, fine, HOWEVER it's worth noting that the "necessities" argument is one based on equity not contract law. If I have 10 apartments and I rent 9 out at 1000 a month, and rent the 10th, identical one to a minor for 2000 a month, I can't recover 2000 a month on that contract, only 1000

Secondly...I'm not sure why people think crabcakes are so good. I love crab, but crabcakes give me a tummy ache.
I don't see how I can be expected to respect the professional opinions of someone who can't eat their weight in seafood-based fritters.

I suppose, then, that you have a formal background in cultural anthropology, politics, religion and economics as well?
Besides which, I have a degrees in Legalologoy, Murderonomy and Internetosophy. I dare you to prove otherwise.

The thing is...it's fairly easy for other people who have actually studied the law to figure out whether someone claiming to have legal knowledge does or not. This is not like studying politics, religion or economics. Most people can gain a fairly developed understanding of those topics even without formal study. It is EXTREMELY rare, and therefore impressive when someone develops such an understanding of a legal system without said formal education.

Generally people come out saying the most fundamentally absurd things about the law right off the bat, and it's not hard to go 'um, no. Just no.'

I suppose, then, that you have a formal background in cultural anthropology, politics, religion and economics as well?

Well, I have a bachelors degree in political science, with a specific concentration on global economic theory, so I can knock half of those out straight away.

The other two are more of an intellectual hobby.

oh do we REALLY want to get technical? Alright, fine, HOWEVER it's worth noting that the "necessities" argument is one based on equity not contract law. If I have 10 apartments and I rent 9 out at 1000 a month, and rent the 10th, identical one to a minor for 2000 a month, I can't recover 2000 a month on that contract, only 1000

Nicely done! But say the minor was actually paying you $2000 rather than simply promising to pay. So you'd have the money, but you were only due $1000 a month under equity. The minor would (at least in Canada anyway) have to sue you for unjust enrichment, and request restitution in order to recover the extra $1000/month.

I don't see how I can be expected to respect the professional opinions of someone who can't eat their weight in seafood-based fritters.

It's just crabcakes baby...you should see me decimate calimari.

It's just crabcakes baby...you should see me decimate calimari.
I say you just haven't had them prepared properly. *nods*

Nicely done! But say the minor was actually paying you $2000 rather than simply promising to pay. So you'd have the money, but you were only due $1000 a month under equity. The minor would (at least in Canada anyway) have to sue you for unjust enrichment, and request restitution in order to recover the extra $1000/month.

not at all, a contract with a minor is voidable, not void. If the minor continued to pay the $2000 a month, the minor has not voided the contract. As long as the minor chooses to remain in the apartment, he has not voided the contract, and as such is bound by the terms of that contract. However, he can withdraw (void) the contract at any time, typically without recourse (save for recovery of goods via unjust enrichment argument as mentioned) EXCEPT in cases of necessity, which becomes an equity argument not a contract one.

If the minor pays $2000 then the minor has not exercised his right to void the contract, and thus is simply paying by those terms.

The thing is...it's fairly easy for other people who have actually studied the law to figure out whether someone claiming to have legal knowledge does or not. This is not like studying politics, religion or economics. Most people can gain a fairly developed understanding of those topics even without formal study. It is EXTREMELY rare, and therefore impressive when someone develops such an understanding of a legal system without said formal education.

Generally people come out saying the most fundamentally absurd things about the law right off the bat, and it's not hard to go 'um, no. Just no.'
That is the way it appears to you, a person who has studied law, and therefore can recognize amateur hour attempts quickly. You probably object to shows like Law & Order for similar reasons. I can't stand most philosophy or theology related threads on NSG because the basic ignorance is just painful, and so I tend to avoid them rather than getting worked up about the stupid things people mistake for original, insightful critiques.
Consider yourself DanBrowned (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned) and move on. Or keep acting like a snob; it's really fucking charming.

Or keep acting like a snob; it's really fucking charming.

oh, irony.

The difference between you and her is, she's earned her right to be a snob. You on the other hand haven't demonstrated sufficient knowledge in any particular subject to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Well, except as you say, philosophy, which I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on. So I suppose I should say any useful subject

Well, except as you say, philosophy. So I suppose I should say any useful subject

Win.

Why would you assume "offers its service to the public" equates to making it a public service. A supermarket offers its service to the public, doesn't make the supermarket public property. It's still private property



What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Well, it doesnt really, other than I dont think your scenario is valid...
Or, if it is, it merely proves my point that legislating this sort of thing is pointless...



And, Im not saying its public property per say...just that Trespassing at a Supermarket is kind of a moot point...Specifically one the size of say, Walmart, which Google surpasses in terms of people by leaps and bounds...Not to mention the people who frequent Google and other Search engines are Anonymous...

And therefore its about impossible to actually prosecute someone for Trespassing on them...

Not to mention the people who frequent Google and other Search engines are Anonymous...

it's really, REALLY cute that you think that.

it's really, REALLY cute that you think that.

Well...Largely Anonymous i should say...IP addresses are too easy to change...

Well...Largely Anonymous i should say...IP addresses are too easy to change...

Most people dont.

not at all, a contract with a minor is voidable, not void. If the minor continued to pay the $2000 a month, the minor has not voided the contract. As long as the minor chooses to remain in the apartment, he has not voided the contract, and as such is bound by the terms of that contract. However, he can withdraw (void) the contract at any time, typically without recourse (save for recovery of goods via unjust enrichment argument as mentioned) EXCEPT in cases of necessity, which becomes an equity argument not a contract one.

If the minor pays $2000 then the minor has not exercised his right to void the contract, and thus is simply paying by those terms.

The minor, choosing to continue paying $2000/month has accepted the terms of the contract, but can void the contract at any time...let's say he does that...he can't get out of the 'necessities of life' contract, but as pointed out, he can sue in unjust enrichment for the amount beyond that...in regards to the money he's already spent. But that may just be in Canada, where we do things a little differently (re: insanely in this case).

Most people dont.

True, but i dont think most people violate Google's Terms of Service...

True, but i dont think most people violate Google's Terms of Service...

I dont think most people do either. And I dont think most people think most people do.

I say you just haven't had them prepared properly. *nods*
It's entirely possible.
Or keep acting like a snob; it's really fucking charming.

Good, charming is exactly what I go for here.

The minor, choosing to continue paying $2000/month has accepted the terms of the contract, but can void the contract at any time...let's say he does that...he can't get out of the 'necessities of life' contract, but as pointed out, he can sue in unjust enrichment for the amount beyond that...in regards to the money he's already spent. But that may just be in Canada, where we do things a little differently (re: insanely in this case).

here's where I THINK we disagree, but I'm not 100%. My understanding is that until and unless the minor voids, then any payments made on the contract are presumptively valid, as merely the minor fulfilling his contract terms. In other words, even IF the apartment is worth $1000, and the minor can be obligated to pay that, if he contracted for $2,000 and paid $2,000, that's just the terms of the contract.

here's where I THINK we disagree, but I'm not 100%. My understanding is that until and unless the minor voids, then any payments made on the contract are presumptively valid, as merely the minor fulfilling his contract terms. In other words, even IF the apartment is worth $1000, and the minor can be obligated to pay that, if he contracted for $2,000 and paid $2,000, that's just the terms of the contract.

Ok, and for some reason I'm fairly certain that if the minor voids the contract, it's void ab initio...but equity would still allow the landlord to keep the $1000/month.

Now I'm going to have to do some digging on this. Capacity...judicial reason...shite. Anyway.

Ok, and for some reason I'm fairly certain that if the minor voids the contract, it's void ab initio...but equity would still allow the landlord to keep the $1000/month.

Now I'm going to have to do some digging on this.

I'm fairly certain the landlord can keep 2000 until the time of voiding, then 1000 moving forward.

Ok, and for some reason I'm fairly certain that if the minor voids the contract, it's void ab initio...but equity would still allow the landlord to keep the $1000/month.

Now I'm going to have to do some digging on this.
I'm fairly certain the landlord can keep 2000 until the time of voiding, then 1000 moving forward.

Im fairly certain youre both wrong.


Im trying this new lawyer thing out.

Well, except as you say, philosophy, which I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on. So I suppose I should say any useful subject
See, here I'm setting a good example. I could point out how little you know about Philosophy (in this case, about the practical value of such a degree), but I won't. I could highlight your ignorance in a desperate attempt to embiggen myself, but I won't.
I'll just say, "rowr," and move on.

See, here I'm setting a good example. I could point out how little you know about Philosophy (in this case, about the practical value of such a degree), but I won't. I could highlight your ignorance in a desperate attempt to embiggen myself, but I won't.
I'll just say, "rowr," and move on.

I think you should start a thread on the practicl uses of a philosophy degree. Because I can think of one outside of academia. Law school. And it is in this situation used as a means to an end, rather than an end itself.

I could point out how little you know about Philosophy (in this case, about the practical value of such a degree), but I won't.

No, you can't, because by definition one can't be ignorant about something that doesn't exist. Now, yes, I'm sure you think it's very very useful and oh so very practical. You'd kind of HAVE to believe that in order to muddle through it, but I fear outside the hallowed halls, the most useful thing a philosophy major has ever done that I've seen is hand me coffee in the morning.

Which, I admit, is very handy, because it gives me that extra little jolt in the morning so that I can go solve actual problems, with actual consequences, that are actually important.

I think you should start a thread on the practicl uses of a philosophy degree. Because I can think of one outside of academia. Law school. And it is in this situation used as a means to an end, rather than an end itself.

To show off to your friends in the Unemployment line? :p

No, but seriously, you can always tell summer in boston. It's when the starbucks become inundated with dazed twenty somethings with septum piercings, thick black eyeliner, punk band tshirts and well thumbed copies of Nietzsche and Kant in their worn, dirty backpacks.

Yeah, you can always tell when the philosophy students graduate.

They're usually the ones who fuck up my coffee.

No, but seriously, you can always tell summer in boston. It's when the starbucks become inundated with dazed twenty somethings with septum piercings, thick black eyeliner, punk band tshirts and well thumbed copies of Nietzsche and Kant in their worn, dirty backpacks.

Yeah, you can always tell when the philosophy students graduate.

They're usually the ones who fuck up my coffee.

Well, the ones who read Nietzsche probably go into academia, or apply to law school.

The ones who read Kant, well, they probably fuck up your coffee. Because anyone who thinks Kant is worthy of reading more than once, sucks.:p

No, but seriously, you can always tell summer in boston. It's when the starbucks become inundated with dazed twenty somethings with septum piercings, thick black eyeliner, punk band tshirts and well thumbed copies of Nietzsche and Kant in their worn, dirty backpacks.

Yeah, you can always tell when the philosophy students graduate.

They're usually the ones who fuck up my coffee.

HEY! I have punk TShirts and a Dirty Backpack! lol...Although ive never read Nietzsche and Kant, no eyeliner or piercings and Im going into Medicine...

So i guess i can let it go, lol...

No, you can't, because by definition one can't be ignorant about something that doesn't exist. Now, yes, I'm sure you think it's very very useful and oh so very practical. You'd kind of HAVE to believe that in order to muddle through it, but I fear outside the hallowed halls, the most useful thing a philosophy major has ever done that I've seen is hand me coffee in the morning.
Because you generally know the credentials of your waiter. Yeah . . .
Which, I admit, is very handy, because it gives me that extra little jolt in the morning so that I can go solve actual problems, with actual consequences, that are actually important.
Wow, I must have hit a nerve. Has doubting the poor, little lawyers' credentials made him sad?

Because you generally know the credentials of your waiter. Yeah . . .

You haven't hung in boston much. You can't throw a stick in some service oriented joint without hitting a philosophy major.

Wow, I must have hit a nerve. Has doubting the poor, little lawyers' credentials made him sad?

You can doubt my credentials all you want, all I care about is that you make my coffee just the way I like it. But, you know, way to "set a good example."

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/gamespy013.jpg

Dammit. This thread is exactly why I shouldn't be on NS a week before my Contracts final. :(

Dammit. This thread is exactly why I shouldn't be on NS a week before my Contracts final. :(

just remember, if a minor pays the full term on a contract, which was over the fair market value of the goods or services provided, he can sue for unjust enrichment!

Or not.

We're not exactly clear on that.

But it's DEFINITELY one of the two.

I think.

just remember, if a minor pays the full term on a contract, which was over the fair market value of the goods or services provided, he can sue for unjust enrichment!

Or not.

We're not exactly clear on that.

But it's DEFINITELY one of the two.

I think.
Ahahahaha...but probably not in the US...Canada has sort of gone off on its own little tangent when it comes to unjust enrichment and fiduciary obligation, so pay us no mind.

*sigh*

Don't violate an internet site's TOS in a way that leads to the death of a young woman and/or involves some other horrific circumstances or crime and you should have nothing to worry about.
That's like saying it's ok for cops to break into your home and search you because you're not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide.

Anonymous is the perfect reason to hide your identity online. And yet there are more and more every day that do not. And Anonymous delivers when they do something stupid.

Could the lawyers here could stop being douche bags for just a moment and explain to an admittedly ignorant person how it isn't a bad thing that when they can't prosecute her for the bad thing she did, they instead go hunting for anything else to stick to her? And when what they found is something almost every user on the internet is doing regularly?

To be told that this will only happen if we are bad isn't very reassuring to me, as she was not found guilty of the "bad stuff" she's so disliked for. I don't think being disliked should decide whether or not something we all do is either accepted or worthy of jail time.

You haven't hung in boston much. You can't throw a stick in some service oriented joint without hitting a philosophy major.
Thankfully, I haven't. Apparently the city is filled with old, hypocritical bastards who couldn't tell the truth to save their lives and whose finest contribution to the human race would be removing themselves from it (ie, lawyers). See, I can draw broad caricatures based on cliches too. Aren't we special?
You can doubt my credentials all you want, all I care about is that you make my coffee just the way I like it. But, you know, way to "set a good example."
If I were your server, I would put poison in your coffee.
And I have set a remarkably good example. Rather than getting snooty or offended, I am having as much fun as the situation offers.

Could the lawyers here could stop being douche bags for just a moment and explain

You have a funny way of asking for help.

Could the lawyers here could stop being douche bags for just a moment I'll have you know that I was a douche bag LOOOOONG before I began studying the law.


Jerk.

Could the lawyers here could stop being douche bags for just a moment
No.
and explain
No!
to an admittedly ignorant person
NO! How dare you not have wasted the prime of your life reading about Supreme Court opinions and obscure case law! You shall shut up and be lead by those who were wiser with their time.

EDIT: Wow, I was hoping to get some good sarking in before I was proven right. Now I feel so very, very sad . . .

Thankfully, I haven't. Apparently the city is filled with old, hypocritical bastards who couldn't tell the truth to save their lives and whose finest contribution to the human race would be removing themselves from it (ie, lawyers). See, I can draw broad caricatures based on cliches too. Aren't we special?

If I were your server, I would put poison in your coffee.
And I have set a remarkably good example. Rather than getting snooty or offended, I am having as much fun as the situation offers.

Hey, it's ok, I understand. It's rough, you know, basically being told your area of study has no applicable use, you have been given absolutely no marketable skills, and for the most part, it's probably just a career dead end spent picking over the carcasses of dead Greeks trying to find something that somebody hasn't said before. It's rough coming to grips with that.

And I know, I know, I'm sure you've been sitting there reciting your personal mantra to yourself about how you're going to be the very bestest, most famous philosopher ever and everybody is going to love you, and you'll write books, and get girls and be famous, and EVERYBODY is going to come to you, and then one day I'll come to you trying to find some deeper truth in my miserable, miserable life, and I will get down on my knees and beg and you'll say NO! and laugh, and you will be happy, and all those mean people who picked on...well...damn it they'll see!

And I wish you the best of luck with that pal, I really truly do. It's hard out there, what with, you know, that whole "no marketable skills" bit, but don't let it get to you! So why don't you crawl into your warm bed, have a good cry, and remember, tomorrow is another day. Keep at it champ, I believe in you!

But, just in case, you might want to keep this (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/application.pdf) handy.

And try not to get your eye liner stained tears on the pillow case. That shit never comes off.

Hey, it's ok, I understand. It's rough, you know, basically being told your area of study has no applicable use, you have been given absolutely no marketable skills, and for the most part, it's probably just a career dead end spent picking over the carcasses of dead Greeks trying to find something that somebody hasn't said before. It's rough coming to grips with that.
My focus is on Modern Philosophy (ie, post 18th century). No Greeks, just Frenchmen, Germans and the occasional Scotsman.
And I know, I know, I'm sure you've been sitting there reciting your personal mantra to yourself about how you're going to be the very bestest, most famous philosopher ever and everybody is going to love you, and you'll write books, and get girls and be famous, and EVERYBODY is going to come to you, and then one day I'll come to you trying to find some deeper truth in my miserable, miserable life, and I will get down on my knees and beg and you'll say NO! and laugh, and you will be happy, and all those mean people who picked on...well...damn it they'll see!
No, again. I'm planning to be a teacher, where I shall get a much more insidious revenge upon you by helping to produce the next generation of hungry young lawyers that will come up from behind and usurp your position. And when you're out in the cold, wondering what the Hell happened to your job and why the other homeless guys don't care about the implications of Booker v. the State of California (or any of the other "marketable" pieces of knowledge you possess), I'll be there laughing.
Well, not really. I wouldn't go to Massachusetts for any reason in the world, but I'll be there in a metaphorical sense. Which is to say, not at all.
And I wish you the best of luck with that pal, I really truly do. It's hard out there, what with, you know, that whole "no marketable skills bit", but why don't you crawl into your warm bed, have a good cry, and tomorrow is another day. Keep at it champ, I believe in you!

But, just in case, you might want to keep this (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/application.pdf) handy.
Why are you so intimidated by someone pursuing an education that they want? Did you select your career path just because you wanted the money? Are you regretting the waste of the best of your life and mind on an arbitrary system of rules?

No, again. I'm planning to be a teacher, where I shall get a much more insidious revenge upon you by helping to produce the next generation of hungry young lawyers that will come up from behind and usurp your position.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.

No, really, I believe in you. Truly. This is my "I believe in you" face.

Did you select your career path just because you wanted the money?

No, 'course not. I chose my career path because I actually have deep love of the law, its systems, its methodology, its purpose and, yes, even its faults.

The fact that I make a lot of money (no, really, a LOT of money) is just an added bonus.

Which I'll be sure to save up, because, you know, I'm going to end up homeless. Because of you. I'm going to end up homeless with poisoned coffee, because you'll be the very bestest philosophy professor there ever was.

Which is why you intimidate me so very much.

No, really, this is my "I'm intimidated" face. I know it looks a lot like the last one, but trust me, very different.

Although, you know, I'll give you credit. I had only assumed you were at the "I'm going to be famous, and you're going to want my help, and I'm going to refuse and you're going to be MISERABLE because of me!" level of delusion. I see now that you've gone right passed that one and straight into the "you're going to be homeless and DIE IN A DITCH because of me" level of extra special, pro level delusion.

And try not to get your eye liner stained tears on the pillow case. That shit never comes off.

And you would know this....? ;)


But seriously, dont a lot of philosophy majors end up in law school (because it theoretically teachs you how to make solid arguements)? I mean, I hate the pretentious bastards, spending all their time contemplating things that are utterly, utterly irrelevent to life, but thats something at least.

That, or as I said, academia.


Stil a waste of time though.

And you would know this....? ;)


But seriously, dont a lot of philosophy majors end up in law school (because it theoretically teachs you how to make solid arguements)? I mean, I hate the pretentious bastards, spending all their time contemplating things that are utterly, utterly irrelevent to life, but thats something at least.

That, or as I said, academia.


Stil a waste of time though.

well I never did a survey, but if so, I suspect it proves that even sometimes they realize that they should do something practical with their lives. Meh

Either way, work tomorrow, have to go protect my job from H N's minions!

well I never did a survey, but if so, I suspect it proves that even sometimes they realize that they should do something practical with their lives. Meh

Either way, work tomorrow, have to go protect my job from H N's minions!

Tell those buggers at the local starbucks tomorrow morning to stop wondering if we're all really here and that its two sugars, one cream, damnit!

Or however the fuck you take your coffee.:p

That's like saying it's ok for cops to break into your home and search you because you're not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide.

No. It's not. It's more like saying if you rent a car to blow up a building, don't be surprised when the fraudulent rental is among the charges. That doesn't mean you should be afraid to ever rent a car.

Could the lawyers here could stop being douche bags for just a moment and explain to an admittedly ignorant person how it isn't a bad thing that when they can't prosecute her for the bad thing she did, they instead go hunting for anything else to stick to her? And when what they found is something almost every user on the internet is doing regularly?

To be told that this will only happen if we are bad isn't very reassuring to me, as she was not found guilty of the "bad stuff" she's so disliked for. I don't think being disliked should decide whether or not something we all do is either accepted or worthy of jail time.

A few separate issues here. Prosecutorial discretion means that every violation of TOS aren't going to be prosecuted in federal court. That would be ridiculous on many levels.

Next, the charges in this case may still not hold up to judicial scrutiny and I admit to limited knowledge of the case, but what Ms. Drew apparently did was violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html). I highly doubt that most users of the internet are guilty of regularly committing computer fraud.

Finally, it is far from unheard of for someone who has done a "bad thing" to get charged and convicted of some crimes, but not others. There were no particular laws local officials felt covered Ms. Drew's cyberbulling. The national attention caused a federal prosecutor to charge Ms. Drew with federal computer fraud crimes. Actually she was charged with 4 felonies and convicted of three misdemeanors.

I have no idea if I suceeded in not being a douche bag, but hopefully I helped answer your concerns.

EDIT: For the record, although I sometimes have to agree that the legal ramblings of non-lawyers can be more annoying than humorous, I think the pissing match about credentials is even more annoying, tedious, unnecessary, etc.

Do you have an equivalent of 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' in the US, whereby I could show that not only does no one read software* ToS, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to.

In this day and age, we download* too much to read so relevant and important sections should be displayed more properly.

*feel free to switch site ToS from software, and/or register too much as opposed to download too much

-snip-

not nearly douchey enough. License REVOKED

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.

No, really, I believe in you. Truly. This is my "I believe in you" face.

The fact that I make a lot of money (no, really, a LOT of money) is just an added bonus.

Which I'll be sure to save up, because, you know, I'm going to end up homeless. Because of you. I'm going to end up homeless with poisoned coffee, because you'll be the very bestest philosophy professor there ever was.
It's as likely a scenario as my serving you coffee.
Although, you know, I'll give you credit. I had only assumed you were at the "I'm going to be famous, and you're going to want my help, and I'm going to refuse and you're going to be MISERABLE because of me!" level of delusion. I see now that you've gone right passed that one and straight into the "you're going to be homeless and DIE IN A DITCH because of me" level of extra special, pro level delusion.
I'll give you credit, too. You've managed to lodge your head so far up your ass you can't recognize the most obvious sarcasm when it is violently kicking you in the groin and shouting, "Nyah-nyah-nyah! I am not a literally true statement."
I don't know why you feel the need to play white knight for the NSG Cabal of Lawyers, but I do know that neither Neesika nor Cat-Tribe need you to stand up for their professional honor. I sincerely doubt that Neesika is going to fly all the way down to Boston just to jump your bones because you wouldn't let that 'orrible Fiddlebottoms be mean to her ON THE INTERNET.
I also don't know what issues you have with philosophy majors, all I can guess is you secretly wish you were one, or maybe philosophy majors used to steal your books in college. Maybe your girlfriend left you for someone who was capable of carrying on an interesting conversation. Hell, maybe your father was a philosopher and he openly resented your being an utter philistine.
Maybe you're not a lawyer at all, but a law student who dropped out and is simply working through their resentments and stymied ambitions on this forum.
Whatever. It isn't worth my time to continue picking that feeble walnut you've mistaken for a brain on the vain assumption that, somewhere among that stored up legal knowledge, there might be a personality worth evaluating. Good night, sweet prince.

Do you have an equivalent of 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' in the US, whereby I could show that not only does no one read software* ToS, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to.

In this day and age, we download* too much to read so relevant and important sections should be displayed more properly.

*feel free to switch site ToS from software, and/or register too much as opposed to download too much

I don't know that the provisions of the ToS that Ms. Drew violated are particularly obscure, but, to be safe, I'd stay away from creating a completely false identity for the purpose of tricking and/or harassing minor girls -- particulary urging them towards suicide.

I don't know why you feel the need to play white knight for the NSG Cabal of Lawyers, but I do know that neither Neesika nor Cat-Tribe need you to stand up for their professional honor. I sincerely doubt that Neesika is going to fly all the way down to Boston just to jump your bones because you wouldn't let that 'orrible Fiddlebottoms be mean to her ON THE INTERNET.

Leave me out of this.

If you want to address the point I raised earlier re why this case got prosecuted and average internet users don't need to live in fear, that'd be nice.

EDIT: Cabal? I kinda like the idea of a Cabal.

If you want to address the point I raised earlier re why this case got prosecuted and average internet users don't need to live in fear, that'd be nice.
I didn't argue any further because I agree. People who violate Terms of Service, but don't do something big or stupid (like harassing someone) to draw attention to themselves have no reason to worry. It's like downloading porn before you're 18. The cost of enforcement would be absolutely ridiculous, and no one has anything to gain from it.
I was nitpicking a bit, because the nature of that case makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable. However, I'm not seriously worried that the FBI are going to come to my door because I pissed off some administrator somewhere.
EDIT: Cabal? I kinda like the idea of a Cabal.
I thought you didn't want to be involved? God, you fucking lawyers are so moody.

I highly doubt that most users of the internet are guilty of regularly committing computer fraud.


Thank you for the reply. I'm not sure about this, however. What she did that was found to be illegal was to violate a website's terms of use. I think most people do that at least once a week, if not daily, so what this shows is that internet users ARE in fact guilty of computer fraud, only they're very unlikely to be punished for it.

I mean, I never give up any personal to websites that request it, despite that being a requirement in their terms of service, which I of course never read anyway but am still bound by. Who isn't guilty of this?

I read everything... except terms of service agreements. I read about a dozen of them and they all seemed to generally be the same so I just assume I know the TOS.