Some good news from the Supreme Court: Violating a website's terms of
service is not a felony.

What Nathan Van Buren did was contemptable, and he deserved to be, and
was, fired for it. But he's not a felon.

When I complained that the aptly-named Discord demanded that I give
it my exact birthday, something that could be used for identity theft
against me by a rogue employee or by a criminal who perpetrates a data
breach against Discord, and which Discord had no use for given that
the alleged purpose of the question is only to ensure that I'm over
13, for which just my birth year or even just my birth *century* would
suffice, lots of people told me that I should lie and give it a fake
birthday, and said they had done the same. I doubt they realized that
they were confessing to a crime and risking years in prison and a
permanent felony record.

Recent posts in rec.music.filk include:

If a service doesn't have a legitimate need for a datum, I feel no
compunction about feeding them false information...

and

I fed Facebook (And nearly all internet sites) false info.. Makes
it harder to ID thief me.

This would also apply to violating an online convention's code
of conduct. As has recently been pointed out in this newsgroup,
Balticon's code of conduct prohibits "slurs and derogatory comments
about a person, group, or category of people." As such, a Balticon
member could have spent more years in prison for criticizing Walter
Breen than Breen spent in prison for molesting at least a dozen
children.

See https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1400839210056048642
and https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 6/6/21 1:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Some good news from the Supreme Court: Violating a website's terms of
> service is not a felony.
>
> What Nathan Van Buren did was contemptable, and he deserved to be, and
> was, fired for it. But he's not a felon.
>
> When I complained that the aptly-named Discord demanded that I give
> it my exact birthday, something that could be used for identity theft
> against me by a rogue employee or by a criminal who perpetrates a data
> breach against Discord, and which Discord had no use for given that
> the alleged purpose of the question is only to ensure that I'm over
> 13, for which just my birth year or even just my birth *century* would
> suffice, lots of people told me that I should lie and give it a fake
> birthday, and said they had done the same. I doubt they realized that
> they were confessing to a crime and risking years in prison and a
> permanent felony record.

We have to be careful here. I haven't seen any claims that the CFAA
makes felonies all violations of rules posted online. It's only an
action that "exceeds authorized access" that it criminalized.

On the other hand, the SCOTUS ruling says the broad reading would
"criminalize everything from embellishing an online-dating profile to
using a pseudonym on Facebook."

Discord says in its terms that "You represent and warrant that the
information you provide to us upon registration and at all other times
will be true, accurate, current, and complete." Does giving false
information to get an account constitute unauthorized access? The age
requirement is only that you be "13 years of age and the minimum age of
digital consent in your country." I'm not sure.

(By the way, it says "13 years of age," not "at least 13 years of age."
I guess people of age 14 and older can't use Discord.)

The SCOTUS ruling says: "On the Government's reading, an employee who
sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using a work computer has
violated the CFAA." But that refers to access to an email server or a
browser in a way which some workplaces prohibit, and many workplaces
explicitly allow personal use within limits.

Using a Balticon server to say "Donald Trump is a jerk" would have
violated the con's terms, so it might constitute "exceeding authorized
access."

I'm not sure how much could have been prosecuted under the broad
interpretation of the CFAA, but I'm happier not to have to find out.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com