No problem. I kind of thought that might be the case, but I figured that it was always possible Les might have made the change. Not likely, just possible.

I like to secretly switch people’s comments with Folgers coffee to see if anyone notices the difference.

Not to be overly ‘doomsayerish’ but I think we’re forgetting a couple things.  First, that one law covering both telephones and the internet will create loopholes and pitfalls that we can’t guess now.  Why? because the internet is NOT a telephone.

The second thing is that Bush is one confirmation away from gaining a majority opinion in the supreme court.  I don’t know about you, but that does NOT fill me with warm fuzzies.

Sure, this teeny little tweak to an existing law might not seem like much, but that doesn’t mean something big and nasty wont be created by it.  I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of this issue.  I keep waiting for a ‘longbow’ law, something that no one would dare enforce but that technically could make anyone a criminal, make us all guilty until proven innocent so the government can side-step our rights while the courts try to straighten things out (if they can).  I may not download mp3s without paying for them or cheat on my taxes, but if it becomes even questionable to express my opinion in places like this.... Who in this country that surfs the internet can say that they don’t do it?  The police can arrest me and charge me and I’m their puppy until a judge says I can go home even if it will only take a lawyer who barely passed the bar to do it.  If that ‘questionable’ speech I was invloved with happens to include my opinion of the government, then while I’m waiting for due process to free me from a technicality, Homeland Security can swoop down and say “We’ll take it from here.” It wont matter that my innocence is all but certain and the charge wont survive a jury.  It only matters that I was charged with a crime and the government says it MAY relate to terrorism, and you might not see me for some time, or even be allowed to tell anyone what is happening to me.  This might not be the law that makes it all possible, but it sure takes us in that direction, all in the name of ‘clarifying existing law” Whether stupidity or malice created it doesn’t matter.  I’d rather not be clarified right into jail, thank you very much.

It’s not going to happen with this administration.  I’m not afraid of Bush.  Everyone is watching him and if he pushes too much, the public will push back.  We are not going to get a police state out of him.  What bothers me is that the public wont push back because he wont go too far.  At worst, Bush is the ram to knock down the door.  What I’m worried about is ten years down the road, some less than savory president (Cheney?) that got into office using a Diebold machine could use all the crap that Bush and Co have scattered around (accidentally or on purpose) for genuine evil, because if it happens then, we may not get the chance to say “Now hold on a minute” Even Hitler was a popular politician before he became a dictator.  I’d rather not roll those dice.

if it happens then, we may not get the chance to say “Now hold on a minute”

This is our chance to say ‘now hold on a minute’ and we’re branded as unpatriotic for saying it.  (If anyone doubts this, surf some conservative blogs)

Just to add fuel to the fire, here’s another article from the folks at ArsTechnica on why this probably isn’t the big problem it first appears to be:

So, given that “annoy” has a higher bar than its everyday meaning, and given that it was already possible to try and do a hatchet job on someone online posting their opinions, what does this law really add to the situation? Without a doubt, the statute is extremely vague and confusing, and some interpretations would give it a meaning so broad as to be unconstitutional. But that’s where the intent qualification comes in: there has to be an appearance that someone is trying to be malicious to achieve a negative end. Could this law be used for abuse? Sure, but then, so are so many laws (the DMCA comes to mind). But I think it’s not quite accurate to say that forum posts and blogs are going to come under fire if someone finds them “annoying.”

If I could boil my reading down to a few sentences, it would be as follows: the statute makes it illegal to send communications with the intent to “annoy,” when those communications are sent anonymously. Previously, it was already illegal to attempt to annoy others with telecommunications services, anonymous or not. Now anonymity is explicitly addressed, but incidental annoyance is still not the same thing as intentional annoyance, which often requires a pattern of abuse to establish (since it is often otherwise very difficult to establish someone’s state of mind when engaging in a particular behavior). Yet this has been illegal for some time. In fact, this entire amendment to the statute is only updating a rather old prohibition against malicious telephone usage.

In a phrase: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Why add this language then? That’s a good question, and if I had to guess, I would say that this looks like a rather lame attempt to address the burgeoning VoIP world, which will soon include all instant messaging clients supporting making calls to Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). But this bill does not make anonymity illegal, nor does it make everyday annoyance illegal. However, if you attempt to hide your identity while engaging in a campaign to annoy someone electronically, you could find yourself on the other side of a lawsuit. But this was already possible before this bill was passed.

So there ya go. More bone to chew on.

Could this law be used for abuse? Sure, but then, so are so many laws (the DMCA comes to mind). But I think it’s not quite accurate to say that forum posts and blogs are going to come under fire if someone finds them “annoying.”

I have two problems with this statement.  First: using the DMCA in that example is like saying “Can a gun hurt you?  Sure, but so can a cannon.” The existence of one bad law should not be used as justification for another.  I consider the DMCA an ‘evil’ law.  It does nothing new except make you a criminal if you try to figure out how the hardware or software you buy works.  The DMCA should never have become law BECAUSE of how it can and has been abused (although many of the laws allies don’t consider much of what has happened ‘abuse’ ) and neither should this law.  I don’t see the good that can come out of this clarification.  At least nothing that justifies the danger it also introduces.  Second, it’s not all about the definiton of ‘annoy’ as it applies to this law.  We do not use a phone to regularly engage in conference calls where the participants hurl insults at each other and call it ‘fun’.  The internet is used that way.  There is a much greater chance of someone trying to abuse this law with respect to the internet than they would for a phone conversation, and regardless of the president we have set with phones, as we have seen so many times in the past, lawyers often argue from the point of view that the internet is unique.  Although that is essentially correct, considering the arguments they are usually trying to promote, they are successful more often than I am comfortable with.

Also, as implied in my last comment; I don’t trust the government, but that goes without saying.

I don’t think it is possible for this law to be abused. Clearly, it’s original intent is to be able to jail arbitrary people for arbitrary reasons. How could that be abused? By not jailing someone who has done nothing wrong? I mean, really.

I don’t think it is possible for this law to be abused. Clearly, it’s original intent is to be able to jail arbitrary people for arbitrary reasons. How could that be abused? By not jailing someone who has done nothing wrong? I mean, really.

If they say the law is made to punish a certain type of person, and when it becomes law it is used to punish other types of people, especially when they say “That will never happen” That is abuse.  The DMCA circumvented fair use, but when it was put in place, the government assured us that it would not be used to go after people who were simply trying to use a product they legally purchased.  After the law was enacted, we had the DVD Jon case.  They lied.

I think this law is pretty much the same.  I read the text and think to myself “That sounds kinda vague.” Now I hear people saying “Oh that wont happen.” I don’t know weather I should laugh or cry.

Bob: I don’t think it is possible for this law to be abused. Clearly, it’s original intent is to be able to jail arbitrary people for arbitrary reasons. How could that be abused? By not jailing someone who has done nothing wrong? I mean, really.

No one could say that with a straight face.
I’m almost convinced that Bob’s having a lend of us.

Sword: I don’t know weather I should laugh or cry.

I’m told that laughing is better for you (us).

I’m almost convinced that Bob’s having a lend of us.

I thought that too, but it was a excuse to follow up what I said earlier We can only hope he was smiling when he posted

I remember when this was a topic of conversation.  I immediately wrote an incredibly annoying blog article about it - under a pseudonym, of course - in response. 

It is true that this does not apply to making smartassed remarks on the internet (thank goodness, because otherwise I’d probably get the death penalty).  However, the people who are the subject of my smartassed remarks invariably believe I am wrong about that.  Go figure.