Internet Crimes and Torts

Internet Crimes and Torts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

candystripper -> Internet Crimes and Torts (5/23/2006 11:37:27 PM)
Firstly a crime is defined by state or federal law and the level of violation (misdemeanor vs felony, e.g.) is stated therein; generally, there is a cross-reference to another statute which sets out punishments, which can range from fines to time in the Big House. Torts are private "crimes", punishable generally by money damages. Now onto internet crimes. 1. Sending a "terroristic threat" in an email or IM ( i recommend P/pl use message archives). Such threats include bodily harm to Y/you or another; threats to property, threats to "hunt Y/you down" with a bad intention obviously implied. 2. Hacking (pardon me; not an expert). The feds have jurisidiction, as do the police in the place from which the email/IM was sent. Unfortunately, rarely will the police or feds bring charges unless Y/you suffered a major financial loss. Loss of creative writing is a gray area. 3. Libel...a written statement of fact which is both untrue and damaging to the person spoken of. This is generally a tort, but can rise to the level of a crime. The aggrevied person would generally have to prove H/he was well-enough known, albeit by nick, that H/he suffered a loss. There are other crimes and torts i have not described. Interested in the experiences of P/pl victimized in any such manner, as well as A/anyone who can contribute more legal-beagling. candystripper

Lordandmaster -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 12:02:56 AM)
Then there are phishing, pharming, spamming, disseminating malware, and so on, which are all obviously related to your category 2, but are not the same thing as hacking.

Chaingang -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 12:49:46 AM)
candystripper: Why is it a "terroristic threat" instead of just "assault"? Assault covers verbal or written threats. Aren't you a lawyer?

UtopianRanger -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 12:50:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper Firstly a crime is defined by state or federal law and the level of violation (misdemeanor vs felony, e.g.) is stated therein; generally, there is a cross-reference to another statute which sets out punishments, which can range from fines to time in the Big House. Torts are private "crimes", punishable generally by money damages. Now onto internet crimes. 1. Sending a "terroristic threat" in an email or IM ( i recommend P/pl use message archives). Such threats include bodily harm to Y/you or another; threats to property, threats to "hunt Y/you down" with a bad intention obviously implied. 2. Hacking (pardon me; not an expert). The feds have jurisidiction, as do the police in the place from which the email/IM was sent. Unfortunately, rarely will the police or feds bring charges unless Y/you suffered a major financial loss. Loss of creative writing is a gray area. 3. Libel...a written statement of fact which is both untrue and damaging to the person spoken of. This is generally a tort, but can rise to the level of a crime. The aggrevied person would generally have to prove H/he was well-enough known, albeit by nick, that H/he suffered a loss. There are other crimes and torts i have not described. Interested in the experiences of P/pl victimized in any such manner, as well as A/anyone who can contribute more legal-beagling. candystripper Nope.... you covered it all pretty well. The only thing I might add, is that it’s real humorous for me to watch two parties threaten litigation over petty nonsense. Especially in light of the fact that neither party truly understands the tremendous wherewithal and follow-through it takes to get to a point where a ''cause of action'' is actually filed before the court. --- And in the end, it's the attorney who usually benefits the most. ; } - R

MsMacComb -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 1:25:38 AM)
Really the bottom line is who knows or is willing to research the law, take action and/or has plenty of money for the lawyers. In cases of libel and copyright (which happens daily) the only people that are going to persue or gain from it are those that can afford to .

candystripper -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 5:32:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang candystripper: Why is it a "terroristic threat" instead of just "assault"? Assault covers verbal or written threats. Aren't you a lawyer? The federal law (and i am relying on memory here, so A/anyone feel free to correct me) uses the more narrow definition of "terroristic threat". "Assault" is not generally defined by statute as language alone, and is generally a state crime. candystripper

Chaingang -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 5:40:24 AM)
This has to be new, right? I sure don't ever recall it being called that before...

candystripper -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 5:40:52 AM)
Utopian Ranger, only the injured party can assess the damages believed suffered or potentiated, and anyway, why is it a bad thing when "the attorney benefits the most"? Lmao. candystripper

candystripper -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 5:50:22 AM)
Okies, no one is describing T/their experiences with law enforcement, so here is one of mine: An internet vendor "mistakenly" withdrew $1,400 from my checking account and sent me a huge order. i had previously verified with the vendor that no such order existed. We're talking mattress, bed springs, bed frames, etc. The vendor offered to return "some" of the money in the event i shipped the goods back at my expense. Hell, i didn't even have a way to lift them. My friend at the Secret Service was interested in the case, but the prosecutor he works with would not file charges because a $25,000 threshold had not been met. However, he was kind enough to call the vendor and they collected their goods and returned my funds pronto. My local county sherriff told me they had no jurisidiction, because the crime occured where the vendor was situated. The vendor had my checking account information from a previous debit card purchase. i might add, the bank was extremely helpful in resolving the matter as well, but nonetheless, i was strapped for cash for awhile. candystripper

Lordandmaster -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 6:52:54 AM)
My only internet-related incident happened a few years ago when a psycho and her husband kept calling my house. Oh, and she was spreading rumors about me in internet chat rooms, saying I was trying to take away her children using a computer game. (I found out about that because someone in London who talked to her in a chat room took it upon himself to call me--she had given him my phone number--and make sure I knew what she was talking about.) I notified the police and they took care of it pronto. I was impressed, especially considering how many stories I've heard where the police didn't want to get involved. That brings up UR's point about suing people for internet-related bullshit. Obviously, it depends on the nature and scope of the injury. I definitely would have considered suing this woman and her husband if they hadn't stopped as soon as the police got involved. Of course I wouldn't sue anyone over bullshit in a Collarme forum. But sometimes people think they can say things on the internet (because it SEEMS anonymous) that they wouldn't dare say through any other medium.

JohnWarren -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 9:22:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper 3. Libel...a written statement of fact which is both untrue and damaging to the person spoken of. This is generally a tort, but can rise to the level of a crime. The aggrevied person would generally have to prove H/he was well-enough known, albeit by nick, that H/he suffered a loss. This is a bit unclear in several areas. For example, in most jurisdictions, truth is a defense against the charge of libel. In other words, if the words are provably true the libel still exists but the law precludes the injured person from making any recovery. I'm not clear on how libel "can rise to the level of a crime". Are you referring to the discredited Smith Act the Alien and Sedition Laws. I don't think there has been a charge of Seditious Libel brought in this country in the last hundred years. Finally, "The aggrevied person would generally have to prove H/he was well-enough known, albeit by nick, that H/he suffered a loss" is true under the requirements that a libel be both published and the person attacked identified. However, it's important to note that should the person be "well-enough known" particularly through taking part in some sort of public debate (and isn't that what happens most of the time on boards and websites) that he or she is known to most of the people in this electronic community, that an additional barrier to winning the case appears. Should the judge rule the plaintif to be a "public figure" that person will have to prove the person making the libel knew (not "suspected" or "had an idea") that the statement was literally false or acted in reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. So being known a little, good; being known a lot, bad.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/24/2006 3:25:43 PM)
Criminal libel is not as uncommon as you'd think. Here's a good resource: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=12468 But I'm honestly surprised that you're saying this, because BitaTruble sent you several links about criminal libel just a couple of weeks ago: http://www.collarchat.com/m_363782/mpage_2/tm.htm#364875 Lam quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren I'm not clear on how libel "can rise to the level of a crime". Are you referring to the discredited Smith Act the Alien and Sedition Laws. I don't think there has been a charge of Seditious Libel brought in this country in the last hundred years.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/25/2006 6:51:13 AM)
Why? Because for one side and sometimes both, litigation is much more psychological than it is superficial; both parties hope/believe they will prevail. Neither party is predisposed to understand that both are likely to come out less well off than before they originally started. In other words, it's an emotional roller-coaster ride of ups and downs; highs and lows. I wish more Attorneys’ would encourage mediation. I know it's not a good draw and doesn't pay as good, but in the end, the whole thing is much beneficial as both sides can come out thinking they've both prevailed. - R

candystripper -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/25/2006 8:09:55 PM)
quote: I wish more Attorneys’ would encourage mediation. I know it's not a good draw and doesn't pay as good, but in the end, the whole thing is much beneficial as both sides can come out thinking they've both prevailed. UtopianRanger Speaking seriously for just a moment: all the lawyers i know DREAD the client who wants to sue, without any reasonable hope of recovery, because "it's the principle of the thing". Such clients tend -- tend, mind Y/you -- to maintain unrealistic goals for the litigation and when disappointed in the result, often hire Attorney #2 to sue Y/you for malpractice. Plus, lawyers are generally firecely protective of T/their win/loss ratios, and fear suffering a loss of future business by dint of reputation for losing a case, particularly a meritless one. Courts and Bar Associations have instituted a variety of means to stem the flow of litigation, as virtually every court -- even small claims -- is backlogged. Ordering mediation is becoming more commonplace, and yes, it has been my experience that even the most rancorous litigation can be settled in mediation. Btw, i know of no lawyer who takes a reduction in fee for mediation as opposed to litigation. Hourly rates generally do not change over the course of the legal matter. Like any businessman or woman, lawyers generally prefer cash on the barrelhead to carrying a receivable for any length of time. In short, most lawyers prefer to be paid FAST -- not necessarially later, in larger sums. We all have to eat. i realise all too well the low esteem in which M/most non-lawyers hold the legal profession. i have heard and seen some lawerly conduct which justifies this view to a degree -- but i know ALOT of lawyers and i consider virtually all of T/them to be consistent in acting in T/their client's best interests, including keeping legal fees to a minimum. M/many people have had only one experience with litigation and the legal profession in r/l -- T/their divorce. i think sometimes clients transfer T/their rancor towards T/their ex and project it onto T/their lawyer. i personally do not handle contested divorces for this very reason. candystripper

UtopianRanger -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/25/2006 10:19:48 PM)
quote: Speaking seriously for just a moment: all the lawyers i know DREAD the client who wants to sue, without any reasonable hope of recovery, because "it's the principle of the thing". Hi Pink.... Yes...I'm well aware that there are many good, ethical lawyers out there and that you're not really a piranha masquerading as a submissive woman [;)] - R

juliaoceania -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/25/2006 10:36:31 PM)
I have been threatened, stalked, harassed, hacked, and all other sorts of unpleasantness via political chats and message boards I have blogged on. To be honest I guess I do not care if people want to threaten me as long as they do not have my personal info.. never really been bothered by kinksters...LOL On Edit: There was someone that did have my personal info that stalked me, and when I tried to report this behavior to my local police and to yahoo I was laughed off. No one helped me, so I kinda lost faith in trying to get justice via the internet... but this was over 2 years ago, so perhaps things have changed....

Lordandmaster -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/25/2006 11:26:58 PM)
The story I'm talking about happened eight years ago. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania No one helped me, so I kinda lost faith in trying to get justice via the internet... but this was over 2 years ago, so perhaps things have changed....

candystripper -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/26/2006 3:05:16 AM)
quote: i have been threatened, stalked, harassed, hacked, and all other sorts of unpleasantness via political chats and message boards I have blogged on. To be honest I guess I do not care if people want to threaten me as long as they do not have my personal info.. never really been bothered by kinksters...LOL On Edit: There was someone that did have my personal info that stalked me, and when I tried to report this behavior to my local police and to yahoo I was laughed off. No one helped me, so I kinda lost faith in trying to get justice via the internet... but this was over 2 years ago, so perhaps things have changed.... juliaoceania Not here in sunny Ohio. i was hacked -- actually i was keylogged if you happen to know what that is -- and there was no doubt the Man doing it was Someone i had spoken to (IM, phone) and subsequently politely rejected in an off-line IM message. i knew the law; i knew that, particularly as He had removed materials from my C drive and altered my cm profile to one which i found degrading (see "pink20nails") that His conduct was a violation of federal and state law. i could not contact the county sherriff where He resided as i did not know which county it was, and i sought assistance from the FBI and Secret Service, only to be turned away. This went on for months; He'd break into on-going IM's and type as if He were me...He'd steal email and other materials...He'd frustrate my efforts to put up ZoneAlarm (a good firewall). i changed isp's 3xs trying to lose Him; the last time i upgraded to dsl, and whether due to that or for lack of interest, as far as i know, He has quit. i have since purchased PestPatrol, which removes keylogging programs or whatever the hell they are. It consistently finds none. i feel satisfied that He has moved on, doubtless hacking some other poor woman. Btw, collarme was not quick off the mark but they did eventually bann Him. i kinda miss that feature "Banned Users"; sorta like being a nosey parker, i always wondered wtf they did to get themselves banned. candystripper

kisshou -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/26/2006 3:26:03 AM)
pink you really should have spoken to a computer professional. How do you know he has not left himself a backdoor?

feastie -> RE: Internet Crimes and Torts (5/26/2006 4:15:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kisshou pink you really should have spoken to a computer professional. How do you know he has not left himself a backdoor? Agreed, the machine should be examined by a computer professional, one that is fully versed in security protocols. Beyond that, a complete reformat and re-install of your software, including firewall, virus and security protection would not be out of the question. Also making sure that if you are using a Windows based system, all patches for your particular OS have been installed.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875