
Teenager Who Reads News Online? According to the DoJ, You May Be a Criminal - sp332
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/are-you-teenager-who-reads-news-online-according-justice-department-you-may-be
======
superuser2
Minors cannot enter into binding contracts, so the parts of the terms of
service that specify a code of conduct, waive liability, etc. are not
enforceable. Minors are legally toxic because of this, and no self-interested
American business would ever knowingly interact with a minor online.

Conveniently ignored in all the stories about teenage whiz-kids who make money
off internet businesses is that they are invariably committing federal
felonies. There is not a single payment processor that doesn't require its
users to be 18. Apple's developer program also requires its users to be 18. So
does AdSense. These services also require users to input a birthday, so the
minors using them needn't worry about "hacking" charges - they've committed
fraud.

Obviously we need to fix the legal situation that makes this necessary, but
that's why. (And because my parents follow rules, I wasn't allowed to do
anything vaguely entrepreneurial on the internet until I turned 18).

~~~
gambiting
Hang on,so you cannot open a bank account before you are 18 in the US? In most
EU countries you need to be 13 to open your own bank account.

~~~
superuser2
Nope. You can have access to an account with your name on it, but it needs to
be held jointly with an adult (typically a parent) and they have to accompany
you to the bank and give permission to open it.

~~~
jmj42
We just opened a checking account for our 17 y/o daughter.

To be specific, the account must be opened in the minors name with a legal
parent or guardian as a co-signatory.

Either way, you're right. Minors can not, in the United States, enter into a
legally binding contract. They can't even legally purchase a car as there is
an implied or express purchase contract.

~~~
gamblor956
Minors can enter into a legally binding contract in the U.S. However, the
seller in a purchase contract cannot enforce a contract against the minor if
the minor does not pay (though the minor can enforce the contract against the
seller if the minor pays but does not receive the purchased item, i.e., the
car). The purpose of making the parent a _co-_ signatory to the contract is to
enforce the contract against the parent if necessary.

~~~
jmj42
Correct. Technically, the contract is voidable by the minor in most cases.
There's exceptions, and state rules come into play. For instance, I believe,
in CA if a minor misrepresents his/her age, then the contract can not be
avoided. In IL, I believe, that's not the case, the contract can still be
avoided.

------
speeder
How I love crazy interactions between laws and the unintended consequences.

And laws related to children are seemly really prone to that, like the
prohibitions in taking photos of naked minors, that had three important
results in my view:

One, allow stupid cases, like ones that DO happened in the US, where for
example a 15 year old girl was prosecuted for giving photos of herself to her
boyfriend (also a minor).

Two, makes illegal to take photos of some real crimes, for example if you take
a photo of a guy raping a minor girl in a park and hand to the police, you can
still be prosecuted for taking the photo.

Three, meddles with human sexuality in ways that few people understand,
although many people now believes that people below 18 are incapable of having
sex with responsability, I refuse to believe that my mother (met my father
when she was 15, they are still married) or my grandmother (married my
grandfather when she was 14, they are still married and VERY happy) were some
sort of stupid children that did not knew what they were doing.

~~~
onemorepassword
In this case however, and in two of the examples you mentioned, these are no
"unintended consequences".

The laws are deliberately broad to allow the interest groups that lobbied for
it to basically lay down the law without pesky democratic interference.

In this case, it's corporations that want to arbitrarily add new restrictions
they haven't even thought of yet (or perhaps have already), so they want a
broad law they can later redefine and apply as they please. Making breaking
the terms of service crime allows them to do that. It basically allows them to
write their own laws, including absurd ones.

In two of the examples you've given we're talking about laws that have be
devised by people that want to enforce a repressive sexual morality on
society. It absolutely is their intention to make any sexually oriented
activity by anyone under 18 illegal.

And the sick part of it is, that by making it illegal in practice, they slowly
manage to convince the rest of society things that used to be perfectly normal
and harmless are now Very Bad Things(TM), which in turn allows them to push
even further. See also: the history of copyright.

This currently happens in every Western country. We are considerably less free
than the previous generation, and things are getting worse. This is not
"unintended", there's a method behind it.

~~~
youngerdryas
>We are considerably less free than the previous generation

This is patently false. The internet and other technologies have opened up
massive vistas of freedom. Your bunker siege mentality, exciting as it may be,
is an illusion.

~~~
charonn0
While the internet has liberated many aspects of humanity (communications,
publishing, artistic and scientific collaboration, etc.) there has been
diminishment of meatspace freedoms, in some cases as a direct reaction by the
former captors.

~~~
ucr
I'm guessing you're not black, are you? Were your Japanese parents placed in
an internment camp during WWII? Were you a communist in the McCarthy era?

It's not that we have _less_ freedom now, it's that freedom is _different_.
Now, we torture people and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo. We spy on our
citizens. We still haven't overcome racism or sexism. But there are definitely
areas where we've improved greatly.

------
quarterto
The word "soon" does not appear anywhere in the article. The original title is
"Are You A Teenager Who Reads News Online? According to the Justice
Department, You May Be a Criminal".

~~~
sp332
I may have misunderstood the article, but hasn't it been determined in courts
that the current version of the CFAA doesn't criminalize ToS breaches? I
thought the article title was referring to a proposed change to the act.

Edit: when I posted the article, I added the word [Soon] to the title.

~~~
ncallaway
Yes, to my knowledge so far courts have held that breaching the ToS is not a
violation of the CFAA.

The proposed bill, as written, would change that. I think the interjection
into the title is accurate, and makes the title less hyperbolic.

------
sodomizer
The idea of having a site's TOS be law is terrible for almost infinite
reasons. None of the rigor of law is applied to it.

Thus, I implore you, all webmasters: insert the phrase "And you promise to
have sex with a goat" into your TOS as soon as possible. That should make
Congress think twice...

------
walshemj
Seems a bit grasping at straws for arguments against the new laws.

Are news papers tos justicable ie are they enforceable - you can put any kind
of crap you want in a tos/contract for example you can sign a contact giving
up your righst to a public holiday but its not a valid contract and is
unenforceable.

The test woudl be are teenagers restricted from buying the print edition no
they are not.

For an organization supposedly all about understanding and lobbying for sane
laws I would expect better than this pathetic effort.

------
pekk
The underlying problem is the huge liability which websites face when children
use those sites and may interact with adults, or view content their parents do
not want them to see. This is what drives ToS to include provisions that say
children shouldn't view the site. edit: effectively throwing the
responsibility back onto the parents to prevent their children from using the
site if it matters, which is where the responsibility belongs

------
gambiting
I am still waiting for a day when Americans are finally going to realize that
it's long past the point when they should be completely fed up with this shit
and don't accept it anymore. Breaching ToS a criminal offence? Is this land of
the free, or the land of the corporations again?

~~~
bhb916
I think you're a bit too fixated on corporations. There is nothing magical
about being incorporated that suddenly grants you wide control over your
elected official. In fact, any legal entity (individual, corporation, or
otherwise) that holds sway over a large swath of votes will possess
considerable influence over their representatives. This is the way of
democracy.

~~~
gambiting
Except that EU countries would never pass a law that prioritizes corporations
over citizens. Why is US considering a law that would make breaching ToS a
criminal offence? Because people want it? I don't think so. And I have no
problem with corporations per se. I know this word is thrown a lot nowadays,
and sometimes not rightfully. But in this specific case, it's corporations(and
other large institutions) which want to have a free hand in establishing their
own laws, which were not voted for, which were not discussed with the
public,and which cannot be fought. And it's fine as it is right now - you
breach the ToS, they are free to stop doing business with you. But making it a
criminal offence? Seriously?

~~~
walshemj
I suspect that the poor bastards who have bank acounts in cyprus aren't
feeling top happy abotu the 40% haircut they are getting courtesy of the EU

~~~
gambiting
The "poor bastards" in Cyprus are(sorry to say this) victims of their own
rotten system. For years they were taking all benefits of being in the EU,
while giving back very little. For the last decade they were asked repeatedly
to impose fair taxes like the rest of the EU. They continuously declined,
making Cyprus one of the tax-heavens of the world. Many companies moved to
Cyprus purely to avoid taxes in their home countries - which was made possible
thanks to EU trade agreements.

And when Cyprus economy could not survive this stupid approach any longer,
they want help from the EU. So EU is like, you know Cyprus, you did not
collect proper taxes in more than a decade, but now you want us to help you
with our tax money? Sure,but this cannot happen again, so either you join
everyone in the fair game, or get lost.

~~~
walshemj
True but not everyone is as culpable as some and don't forget the central core
made bank flogging high value goods to the periphery that realisticaly they
could not afford.

I agree with the Guardians finance editor when he described the euro as a bad
idea whose time has come.

And the problem is if this goes ahead it sets a precedent as various Eu
finance types have said that this will be used elsewhere

For Americans whats proposed for Cyprus its a bit like the Presidential
Executive Order 6102 which confiscated private holdings of gold back in the
30's.

~~~
gambiting
It's a bit different though. In America the government was taking something
you physically owned and you had to give it away under a threat of punishment.

What Cyprus did makes sense if you realize something - and it has completely
blown my mind because I was not aware of it too - that once you give money to
the bank, it's not yours, you do not own it anymore. If you pay 100 pounds
into your account, you are giving the bank a loan for a 100 quid, which the
bank obliges to repay on demand - as stated in your contract. So when you go
to to the bank to withdraw your 100 pounds, it's the bank repaying its debt to
you. Therefore Cyprus uses the bank's money to repay its debts - not yours.
Sure, they do owe money to the account holders now, but it's identical to a
company going bankrupt - they might owe you something,but they physically do
not have any money to give back.

I am not saying this is a good thing, and I am not supporting it. I am saying
that once you realize that money paid into the bank is not yours anymore, it
all makes sense.

~~~
bhb916
I don't disagree with what you said (in fact I upvoted it because it's spot
on), but this sort of makes FDIC insurance a sham, right? They're basically
claiming they will insure your money in a bank until they need it -- then it's
fair game. Even if they never do renege on their promise, we are (through
taxation) subsidizing people to give their money away to banks.

~~~
gambiting
Well yes, that is basically what happens. It was actually the UK Ministry of
Treasury that said in a statement, that after you give money to a banker "that
money is for all intentions and purposes owned by the banker. The banker is
now in your debt and should repay his debt upon your request. He is, however,
free to invest that money however he wishes, as long as he is able to repay
all the debts".

But as we all know, sometimes investments(high-risk loans especially)
sometimes don't pan out and the banker literally cannot pay you back.

There is a EU law that says that a bank needs to always have enough money to
repay the first 100 thousand euros to each of its customers - but there is no
such guarantee for any amount above this, so if a bank goes bankrupt you won't
get anything above 100k, until the bank regains financial stability or its
possessions are sold and debtors payed off.

------
lr
Too bad computer and internet literacy tests are not required to be eligible
to run for Congress. Our systems is so messed up because members of Congress
are living in the Dark Ages in terms of their knowledge about technology and
the internet, and the only ones feeding them any info are "rights holders"
(read lobbyists).

Jack Abramoff was on "To the Best of Our Knowledge" on Sunday night, and all I
can say is, we're f*&^ed. I think I will start donating more money to EFF.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Computer literacy? I don't even care about computer literacy or people
learning how to program ... I'd like congress people to be _literate_ and not
only that but be in the slightest bit _rational_. We have people in Congress
that think CO2 is not a problem because it is in Coke cans and ones that think
banning assault rifles leads us on toward a slippery slope of bestiality and
oddly enough most of these come from one particular party.

------
aethertap
If this is truly as described, then it seems like it's ripe for use by privacy
advocates. Kind of a robots.txt for data miners and snoops.

New ToS: "You may not view any material on this site if you are in any way
affiliated with [irritating corporation or agency]"

------
snowwrestler
I'm not a fan of hyperbole or stretching the truth, even when it is in service
of a noble goal.

In this case the eye-catching headline is directly undercut by the actual
state of legal precedent, which is that individuals are explicitly _not_ a
criminal just because you violate terms of use.

There are a lot of good arguments to fix the CFAA...why rely on a bad one?

~~~
walshemj
yes making wildly stupid statements like this is no way to act for a
supposedly professional organization - all this will do is get the EFF treated
as "nut jobs" by law makers and politicians.

~~~
sodomizer
Notice how many of the comments in this topic verge on the hysterical,
paranoid, reactionary and ill-informed.

It brings them out. The sheer emotional appeal of the original headline brings
out the worst in people.

------
solox3
That protection act is one thing, these terms of service is another. Why would
sites like Popular Mechanics impose an age limit?

~~~
speeder
I make games for children, so I have to track COPPA.

Among the children product makers, it is known that US government go crazy
with COPPA, throwing huge lawsuits even against mom'n'pop shops if they think
you are somehow not meeting COPPA fully.

Even my business, that has NOTHING to do with the USA (our dev lab is in
Brazil, our headquarters is in Switzerland, and we sell to Russia, Brazil,
France, Germany and Korea) we comply with COPPA because we fear USA might find
a way to screw us.

When dealing with USA (that I don't know why its citizens still believe is
land of the free) it is ALWAYS better to go safe than sorry.

~~~
cbhl
Frankly, I found this surprisingly misguided for something from the EFF. CFFA
isn't the law that causes such absurd Terms of Service -- COPPA is.

Children have been misrepresenting their ages since well before COPPA was
introduced, but I distinctly remember COPPA making the problem much worse
amongst my peers.

I remember, a few weeks before one of my birthdays, having to pick between
abandoning my Neopets account so that I could create a new one where I
pretended to be over thirteen, or asking my parents to sign a printed
permission slip for me and each of my sisters and let me fax it to Neopets.

I ended up doing the latter, but only because I knew we had a fax machine in
the house, and my parents already knew (and were okay with) me being on
Neopets all day long. A bunch of my peers just created new accounts, and
eventually devolved into sock-puppeting once they realized that there wasn't
necessarily a one-to-one correspondance between people and accounts.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, though. The moment that a child turns
16, 18, or 21 (depending on jurisdiction) they're inundated with peers who
want to go on Facebook, offers for loyalty programs and credit cards from
every store they visit IRL, and tracking cookies from Ad networks online. If a
kid has $20, and wants to buy something from the local Wal-Mart, no one will
stop him/her from doing so. But if a kid wants to spend that $20 on
Amazon.com, COPPA prevents them from even creating an account in the first
place.

As a kid, I felt like COPPA simply prevented me from participating in the
world in a way that nobody would have ever experienced before dial-up became
mainstream, and I seriously think that harmed my ability and that of my peers
to handle the privacy concerns that plague barely-legal adults today.

------
eaxbin
Seriously, America - What's with the complete 3rd world acting?

~~~
pekk
Did you understand the article? The issue is all our "think of the children"
wailing has forced websites to bar minors from viewing in order to avoid very
serious liability.

~~~
eaxbin
I feel that your comment actually validates my point.

Your "think of the children" wailing makes me, and I fear, a lot of other
people / countries step away from you.

------
diminoten
Ever since the SOPA 2.0 stuff from the EFF, I can't take them seriously
anymore.

------
dreamdu5t
Which court case decided that browsing a website is a form of contractual
agreement with whatever happens to be posted?

------
duaneb
I love the EFF but they've got to stop this misleading, sensationalized crap
if they want any money or support from me. They didn't nail Aaron because he
violated the terms of service, they nailed him for STEALING FROM JSTOR. Just
because the charges were related to a violation of TOS doesn't mean anything
aside from the fact that a TOS violation may be a criminal offense. So say
that!

~~~
betterunix
"They didn't nail Aaron because he violated the terms of service, they nailed
him for STEALING FROM JSTOR"

Nothing was stolen, he destroyed or returned all copies of the scientific
articles he downloaded, and JSTOR decline to press charges. He was then
charged with computer crime for violating MIT's terms of service, which is a
dubious legal standard that was already shot down by the courts years ago.

Aaron Swartz was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor with a history of
civil rights abuses and who had previously driven another alleged hacker to
suicide. The CFAA is shockingly broad and puts the public in legal danger _by
its very existence_. There is no defense of the government's actions in the
Aaron Swartz case.

~~~
duaneb
Sorry, I should have made this clear: the reason he was focused on by the
attorneys general is because of the theft, not the TOS violation. I am
perfectly aware Aaron resolved the case with JSTOR amicably. And I agree with
everything you said.

