Cyber Criminal

In a highly unusual use of a federal law in which legal experts describe as “creative” and “aggressive,” a St. Louis, Missouri woman has been indicted in what may be the country’s first case of cyber-bullying. Federal prosecutors say Lori Drew, 49, and others created an account on the social networking site MySpace pretending to be a 16-year-old boy to fool her neighbor, 13-year-old Megan Meier.

According to prosecutors, Drew used the MySpace account to establish a relationship with Meier, acting for weeks to be a boy interested in forming a romantic relationship her. A short time later, Drew suddenly ended the relationship, taunting Meier and telling her the world would be better off without her. Consequently, a distraught Meier committed suicide by hanging herself.

Drew is Arrested and Charged with a Crime

The federal indictment, which was delivered in Los Angeles after state prosecutors in Missouri declined to bring charges, is unprecedented, and legal commentators believe it may seriously stretch the federal statute on which it was based. The indictment charged that in violation of MySpace terms of service, “Drew and co-conspirators knowingly and agreed with each other to intentionally access a computer … to further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotion distress.” According to the prosecution, Drew violated MySpace’s terms by using a fictitious name, among other things, and thus had no authority to access the MySpace service.

“This adult woman allegedly used the Internet to target a young teenage girl, with horrendous ramifications,” said United States Attorney Thomas O’Brien. “Any adult who uses the Internet or a social-gathering website to harass or bully another person, particularly a young girl, must realize their actions can have serious consequences.”

The Unprecedented Charges may Create a New Realm of Cases

The case presents a new wrinkle in the interpretation of federal law. Legal experts warned that such an interpretation could criminalize routine behavior on the internet. After all, people regularly create accounts or post information under aliases for many legitimate reasons, including avoiding spam and a desire to maintain their privacy online.

This new interpretation also gives a business contract the force of a law: violations of a web site’s terms of service could now lead to criminal sanctions, instead of just civil lawsuits or ejection from a site.

“I think the danger of applying a statute in this way is that it could have unintended consequences,” said John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor. “An application of a general statute like this might result in chilling a great deal of online speech and other freedom.” Drew is scheduled to be arraigned in St. Louis but the trial will be held in Los Angeles were MySpace is headquartered. If convicted of the charges, Drew faces up to 20 years in prison.

In a highly unusual use of a federal law in which legal experts describe as “creative” and “aggressive,” a St. Louis, Missouri woman has been indicted in what may be the country’s first case of cyber-bullying. Federal prosecutors say Lori Drew, 49, and others created an account on the social networking site MySpace pretending to be a 16-year-old boy to fool her neighbor, 13-year-old Megan Meier.

According to prosecutors, Drew used the MySpace account to establish a relationship with Meier, acting for weeks to be a boy interested in forming a romantic relationship her. A short time later, Drew suddenly ended the relationship, taunting Meier and telling her the world would be better off without her. Consequently, a distraught Meier committed suicide by hanging herself.

Drew is Arrested and Charged with a Crime

The federal indictment, which was delivered in Los Angeles after state prosecutors in Missouri declined to bring charges, is unprecedented, and legal commentators believe it may seriously stretch the federal statute on which it was based. The indictment charged that in violation of MySpace terms of service, “Drew and co-conspirators knowingly and agreed with each other to intentionally access a computer … to further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotion distress.” According to the prosecution, Drew violated MySpace’s terms by using a fictitious name, among other things, and thus had no authority to access the MySpace service.

“This adult woman allegedly used the Internet to target a young teenage girl, with horrendous ramifications,” said United States Attorney Thomas O’Brien. “Any adult who uses the Internet or a social-gathering website to harass or bully another person, particularly a young girl, must realize their actions can have serious consequences.”

The Unprecedented Charges may Create a New Realm of Cases

The case presents a new wrinkle in the interpretation of federal law. Legal experts warned that such an interpretation could criminalize routine behavior on the internet. After all, people regularly create accounts or post information under aliases for many legitimate reasons, including avoiding spam and a desire to maintain their privacy online.

This new interpretation also gives a business contract the force of a law: violations of a web site’s terms of service could now lead to criminal sanctions, instead of just civil lawsuits or ejection from a site.

“I think the danger of applying a statute in this way is that it could have unintended consequences,” said John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor. “An application of a general statute like this might result in chilling a great deal of online speech and other freedom.” Drew is scheduled to be arraigned in St. Louis but the trial will be held in Los Angeles were MySpace is headquartered. If convicted of the charges, Drew faces up to 20 years in prison.

In a highly unusual use of a federal law in which legal experts describe as “creative” and “aggressive,” a St. Louis, Missouri woman has been indicted in what may be the country’s first case of cyber-bullying. Federal prosecutors say Lori Drew, 49, and others created an account on the social networking site MySpace pretending to be a 16-year-old boy to fool her neighbor, 13-year-old Megan Meier.

According to prosecutors, Drew used the MySpace account to establish a relationship with Meier, acting for weeks to be a boy interested in forming a romantic relationship her. A short time later, Drew suddenly ended the relationship, taunting Meier and telling her the world would be better off without her. Consequently, a distraught Meier committed suicide by hanging herself.

Drew is Arrested and Charged with a Crime

The federal indictment, which was delivered in Los Angeles after state prosecutors in Missouri declined to bring charges, is unprecedented, and legal commentators believe it may seriously stretch the federal statute on which it was based. The indictment charged that in violation of MySpace terms of service, “Drew and co-conspirators knowingly and agreed with each other to intentionally access a computer … to further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotion distress.” According to the prosecution, Drew violated MySpace’s terms by using a fictitious name, among other things, and thus had no authority to access the MySpace service.

“This adult woman allegedly used the Internet to target a young teenage girl, with horrendous ramifications,” said United States Attorney Thomas O’Brien. “Any adult who uses the Internet or a social-gathering website to harass or bully another person, particularly a young girl, must realize their actions can have serious consequences.”

The Unprecedented Charges may Create a New Realm of Cases

The case presents a new wrinkle in the interpretation of federal law. Legal experts warned that such an interpretation could criminalize routine behavior on the internet. After all, people regularly create accounts or post information under aliases for many legitimate reasons, including avoiding spam and a desire to maintain their privacy online.

This new interpretation also gives a business contract the force of a law: violations of a web site’s terms of service could now lead to criminal sanctions, instead of just civil lawsuits or ejection from a site.

“I think the danger of applying a statute in this way is that it could have unintended consequences,” said John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor. “An application of a general statute like this might result in chilling a great deal of online speech and other freedom.” Drew is scheduled to be arraigned in St. Louis but the trial will be held in Los Angeles were MySpace is headquartered. If convicted of the charges, Drew faces up to 20 years in prison.

Fair Access Policy, which might be more accurately described as a bad policy gone amuck, many Internet users are not aware of the term FAP or Fair Access Policy which is an arbitrary use case scenario where a figure is picked that is then enforced as a punitive measure if you exceed the limit.

The limit is the bandwidth that you are allowed to use on any given 24 hour period.

As you might imagine, no policy can be perfect, because this is designed to limit your use of a service over a period of time, there are some that use more bandwidth, than other users, and still others that use much more than the average user, this policy is designed to level the playing field among all users, however the problem is that the policy does not actually work very well in doing that.

The limit is apparently calculated during a 24 hour period and if you exceed the speed limit of this bandwidth you are then penalized and punished as a speeder on the network. The problem comes in many different situations, for instance this user was just penalized, after a period of time where I was unable to use the service at all, in other words, the service was down. Now, I did not get a refund on that amount of bandwidth that I was unable to access, this is where this problem begins to get out of hand, and also this is where the policy becomes unfair.

The ISP, (Internet Service Provider)

Creates this speed limit, yet does not track the long term offenders of this speed limit, they just penalize everyone at the same rate of penalty, this creates further issues with regard to providing a smooth and happy customer service experience.

One wonders what is up with the people in charge of these companies. I for one and I suspect there are many others, would rather there be different levels of speeding, different speeding tickets in other words. If you constantly offend the speed limit, then the punishment should be different than say someone who offends just once a month, yet currently the punishment is the same for every offender. Here is an excellent example, on the 30th of last month, the Internet service was unavailable for use, (in other words the service was not working). On the next day the 31st I used up more bandwidth than normal because I had no access the day before there was additional need to catch up.

Yet I was punished at a rate far in excess of the violation.

So really I should get credit for the time in which I was unable to use the service. This is really like having your cake and eating it too for the ISP. They get to limit your use on a daily basis, yet if they cannot provide service for any given period they feel no responsibility to the user at all, its tough luck the way the policy works is entirely in the favor of the ISP and has no basis in good customer service.

It creates negative feelings among subscribers and leaves out many useful marketing stratagems, say for instance you get a speeding ticket one day out of the entire month. You are then penalized, at the same rate as say offenders that get speeding tickets every day, this is just not right nor is it fair in any meaningful way.

When you compare Satellite service with other comparable ISP services, bandwidth is hardly ever an issue, in fact speeds for cable provide performance speeds at many time that of satellite services, which begs the question, Are you really getting the most for your money using satellite services to access the Internet.