Useful list of cybercrime laws in the USA

[Galimatias]

Bertie the Bunyip whined in anguish:
> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
> sednews:zxtcchpxq14um2u.171120041215@127.0.0.1:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
>>> sednews:3ypczpbbu4w8x1q.171120041141@127.0.0.1:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are referring to the double jeopardy rule, it is strictly a
>>>> bar to prosecution in the same jurisdiction, rather than different
>>>> jurisdictions. The problem of the same conduct being made criminal
>>>> in several jurisdictions is of a different dimension. It exists,
>>>> for example, with piracy and anti-slavery laws, and more recently
>>>> with anti-terrorism laws.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bwahwahhwhahwh!
>>>
>>> So now i'm a terrorist.
>>
>> No, that's silly. Even you should realise that.
>
> Even me?
> You were the one who brought up anti terrorism laws, shithead.


If you could comprehend the paragraph that refers to anti-terrorism laws,
you would understand that it does not have, and was not meant to have, any
bearing on you and your activity. It has nothing to do with you. But you
can't, so you won't.

>>> What fjukwits you really are.
>>
>> IKYABWAI
>
> We shall see.

Who is "we"?

[Jacques Guy]

Spelling, please: "cooks" not "kooks".

Myself, I am partial to minced bunyip (raw, of course)
with chopped onion and parsley, capers, and a couple
of egg yolks thrown in (raw, of course). Occasionally,
I add chopped Mexican chillies (jalapeños) and chopped
garlic (raw, of course). Sometimes also mustard oil.
We call it "Bunyip Tartare".

The harder part is catching the bunyip. But the resultant
dish is well worth the effort.

For my lunch today I am reduced to run-of-the-mill
"Steak Tartare", alas. But there is salivation ahead...

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
sednews:dcfqq8k6meiwkqf.171120041227@127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip whined in anguish:
>> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
>> sednews:zxtcchpxq14um2u.171120041215@127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
>>>> sednews:3ypczpbbu4w8x1q.171120041141@127.0.0.1:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are referring to the double jeopardy rule, it is strictly a
>>>>> bar to prosecution in the same jurisdiction, rather than different
>>>>> jurisdictions. The problem of the same conduct being made criminal
>>>>> in several jurisdictions is of a different dimension. It exists,
>>>>> for example, with piracy and anti-slavery laws, and more recently
>>>>> with anti-terrorism laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwahwahhwhahwh!
>>>>
>>>> So now i'm a terrorist.
>>>
>>> No, that's silly. Even you should realise that.
>>
>> Even me?
>> You were the one who brought up anti terrorism laws, shithead.
>
>
> If you could comprehend the paragraph that refers to anti-terrorism
> laws, you would understand that it does not have, and was not meant to
> have, any bearing on you and your activity. It has nothing to do with
> you. But you can't, so you won't.
>
>>>> What fjukwits you really are.
>>>
>>> IKYABWAI
>>
>> We shall see.
>
> Who is "we"?
>

I think we've already covered that, pussy froupsnipping fukwit

Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> sednews:419AC248.6C4E@alphalink.com.au:

> Spelling, please: "cooks" not "kooks".
>
> Myself, I am partial to minced bunyip (raw, of course)
> with chopped onion and parsley, capers, and a couple
> of egg yolks thrown in (raw, of course). Occasionally,
> I add chopped Mexican chillies (jalapeños) and chopped
> garlic (raw, of course). Sometimes also mustard oil.
> We call it "Bunyip Tartare".
>
> The harder part is catching the bunyip. But the resultant
> dish is well worth the effort.

you'll be the first..

Bertie

[Seppo Renfors]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Galimatias wrote:
> >
> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >>> This appears to be a useful tabulation of laws related to cybercrimes
> >>> in the USA.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ccmostwanted.com/LL/us.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you making tiger soup?
> >
> >
> > Maybe. We'll see.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> >
>
> And maybe not.
>
> Just as an exercise, let's take a state at random - say North Carolina.
>
> http://www.ncleg.net/statutes/generalstatutes/html/bychapter/chapter_14.html
>
> 14-196.3. Cyberstalking.
>
> Moving on down to paragraph (c)
>
> "Any offense under this section committed by the use of
> electronic mail or electronic communication may be deemed to
> have been committed where the electronic mail or electronic
> communication was originally sent, originally received in this
> State, or first viewed by any person in this State."
>
> So on the face of it, even if neither the sender nor the targetted
> recipient are in the state, the offence would have been deemed to have
> been committed in that state if, say, a law enforcement officer were to
> look at the communication about which a complaint had been made.

You missed the essential words in your quoted text, "originally
received ... or first viewed". If a complaint has been made and "a law
enforcement officer were to look at the communication", then it no
longer is the "original" nor the "first", is it.

> That would then trigger any powers of enquiry that exist in relation to
> a suspected offence, and in particular in relation to any entity that
> might have information pertaining to the offence or the identity of the
> persom committing the offence, whether or not that person was themselves
> in North Carolina.
>
> Still, as I said, we only looking at NC as an example.
>
> Sylvia.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Sylvia Else]

Seppo Renfors wrote:

>
> You missed the essential words in your quoted text, "originally
> received ... or first viewed". If a complaint has been made and "a law
> enforcement officer were to look at the communication", then it no
> longer is the "original" nor the "first", is it.
>

I didn't read it that way. I read it as meaning that if several people
viewed it in this state, then the offence may be deemed to have occurred
where the first of those people viewed it. Of course that raises the
question of how you know, but the other construction also raises the
same problem. Can an entire case collapse because it's discovered that
some pimply teenager read the post earlier the same day on the other
side of the world?

One problem with the other construction is that the person who first
viewed a communication is most likely the sender.

The sentence is a awkward one, in truth. The phrase "in this state" is
repeated for the second and third of the three alternatives, which
presumably means that it does not apply to the first. So the offence can
be deemed to have occurred in the state from which the communication
originated, but not in the state in which it was received, unless it was
received in NC. An odd lack of symmetry.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419af760$0$2681$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:

>
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
>>
>> You missed the essential words in your quoted text, "originally
>> received ... or first viewed". If a complaint has been made and "a law
>> enforcement officer were to look at the communication", then it no
>> longer is the "original" nor the "first", is it.
>>
>
> I didn't read it that way. I read it as meaning that if several people
> viewed it in this state, then the offence may be deemed to have occurred
> where the first of those people viewed it. Of course that raises the
> question of how you know, but the other construction also raises the
> same problem. Can an entire case collapse because it's discovered that
> some pimply teenager read the post earlier the same day on the other
> side of the world?
>
> One problem with the other construction is that the person who first
> viewed a communication is most likely the sender.
>
> The sentence is a awkward one, in truth. The phrase "in this state" is
> repeated for the second and third of the three alternatives, which
> presumably means that it does not apply to the first. So the offence can
> be deemed to have occurred in the state from which the communication
> originated, but not in the state in which it was received, unless it was
> received in NC. An odd lack of symmetry.


What a fjukwit.
Face it, you're a luser with no hope. I spotted this rare gift in you day
one and have and will continu to, exploit it for my own amusement and
you're powerless to stop it.

Fjukwit

Bertie

[Seppo Renfors]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> >
> > You missed the essential words in your quoted text, "originally
> > received ... or first viewed". If a complaint has been made and "a law
> > enforcement officer were to look at the communication", then it no
> > longer is the "original" nor the "first", is it.
> >
>
> I didn't read it that way. I read it as meaning that if several people
> viewed it in this state, then the offence may be deemed to have occurred
> where the first of those people viewed it.

....meaning "in this state" (NC in your example IIRC). Correct the
"enforcement officer" in this state would have jurisdiction (well if
we were in NC that is).

> Of course that raises the question of how you know,

You have already answered that yourself - it is the complaint made
that will govern it.

> but the other construction also raises the
> same problem. Can an entire case collapse because it's discovered that
> some pimply teenager read the post earlier the same day on the other
> side of the world?

No, it would make the legislation unworkable and it would end up in
realm of "what if" nonsense.

> One problem with the other construction is that the person who first
> viewed a communication is most likely the sender.

Sorry, but that doesn't count :-)

> The sentence is a awkward one, in truth. The phrase "in this state" is
> repeated for the second and third of the three alternatives, which
> presumably means that it does not apply to the first. So the offence can
> be deemed to have occurred in the state from which the communication
> originated, but not in the state in which it was received, unless it was
> received in NC. An odd lack of symmetry.

I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor their
judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things resulting in
something illogical as hell. In this case it is a fairly clear. This
is the relevant section:

"....where the electronic mail or electronic communication was
originally sent, originally received in this State, or first viewed by
any person in this State."

There are three ways for it to become an "offence". By the address it
was sent to - the state where it was first viewed - or the state where
it was first received. These need not be one and the same state, but
can be (and I suspect mostly would be). In the US I suspect it could
amount to three "offences". Litigation between states seems to be a
major problem there - they appear to rely on International Law to
enforce an interstate judgement!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> sednews:419AC248.6C4E@alphalink.com.au:

> Spelling, please: "cooks" not "kooks".
>
> Myself, I am partial to minced bunyip (raw, of course)
> with chopped onion and parsley, capers, and a couple
> of egg yolks thrown in (raw, of course). Occasionally,
> I add chopped Mexican chillies (jalapeños) and chopped
> garlic (raw, of course). Sometimes also mustard oil.
> We call it "Bunyip Tartare".
>

I C.

Well, good hunting intrepid hunter.
Maybe they can do something for you here.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/16/life.hunting.reut/index.html

[Cammy]

Seppo Renfors wrote:

> I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor their
> judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things resulting in
> something illogical as hell. In this case it is a fairly clear. This
> is the relevant section:

I don't think they have a monopoly on that. You've perhaps seen my
comments on our Child Support Assessment Act.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Seppo Renfors wrote:

> I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor their
> judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things resulting in
> something illogical as hell. In this case it is a fairly clear. This
> is the relevant section:

They certainly don't have a monopoly on that. You perhaps saw my
comments about the Child Support Assessment Act.

I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing - but
that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation. The wording
that makes this stuff opaque to the man in the street is supposed to
make it precise, but it doesn't seem to achieve that.

Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
>> I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor their
>> judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things resulting in
>> something illogical as hell. In this case it is a fairly clear. This
>> is the relevant section:
>
> They certainly don't have a monopoly on that. You perhaps saw my
> comments about the Child Support Assessment Act.
>
> I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing - but
> that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation. The
> wording that makes this stuff opaque to the man in the street is
> supposed to make it precise, but it doesn't seem to achieve that.

That's always going to be a problem for you if you have the expectation that
legislation works like a formula in algebra. It doesn't. There are lots of
ways of making sense of particular legislation, or getting into a position
to appreciate it, but try this one - the penumbra effect. The legislation
has a specific objective, and usually meets this. As you move out from the
core to the penumbra, it becomes less certain, even a little woolly. That's
where a rule of reason can help you move through the shadows. A special
challenge is articulating that specific objective that is the core. It will
be there, but not always explicit.

And you might like sausages, and the law. That's no guarantee that you
would like to see them actually being made.

[Tony Smith]

Sylvia Else wrote:

>
> I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing -
> but that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation. The
> wording that makes this stuff opaque to the man in the street is
> supposed to make it precise, but it doesn't seem to achieve that.
>

It's not the fault of the people draughting legislation, it's the fatal
flaws in the rules that govern how they must write them and th etime
frames in which they are required to write them.

Compare legislation written prior to the push to "Plain English", say
the Cheques Act or the Sale of Goods Act (any State), which are
beautiful examples of the art of legislative draughting with more
recent legislation (see especially absurd pieces of rot like the
Corporations Act or the "new" Evidence Act (Cwth).

The culprit is the requirement to not use what a high Court Judge once
described as "words of art".

The problem is that Law is about the precise definition of a situation
by language, legislative draughtsmen are now supposed to achieve that
precision by using the "plain and ordinary" meanings of words.

Sort of like requiring a brain surgeon to use steak knives for
*his/her* job.

The second problem is time frame. It used to be accepted that it took
approximately two years to go from outline to draft on anything but the
most simple legislation. The "job" would be assigned to one or more
draughtsmen and they would refine the proposed legislation against well
founded draughting "standards".

This no longer happens as Governments increasingly have to legislate on
the run as a simple an dinevitable by-product of the world we live in,
but the secondary result of this is that no-one takes up legislative
draughting as a career anymore, it's just something you fleetingly do
on the way up the Government corporate ladder.

../rant off


Cheers

Tony Smith

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor their
>>>judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things resulting in
>>>something illogical as hell. In this case it is a fairly clear. This
>>>is the relevant section:
>>
>>They certainly don't have a monopoly on that. You perhaps saw my
>>comments about the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>
>>I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing - but
>>that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation. The
>>wording that makes this stuff opaque to the man in the street is
>>supposed to make it precise, but it doesn't seem to achieve that.
>
>
> That's always going to be a problem for you if you have the expectation that
> legislation works like a formula in algebra. It doesn't. There are lots of
> ways of making sense of particular legislation, or getting into a position
> to appreciate it, but try this one - the penumbra effect. The legislation
> has a specific objective, and usually meets this. As you move out from the
> core to the penumbra, it becomes less certain, even a little woolly. That's
> where a rule of reason can help you move through the shadows. A special
> challenge is articulating that specific objective that is the core. It will
> be there, but not always explicit.
>
> And you might like sausages, and the law. That's no guarantee that you
> would like to see them actually being made.

I have no problem with the penumbra effect - it's in any case inherent
in any formulation that uses words because they have that as an
intrinsic property.

But that's no excuse for sloppy drafting that leaves open multiple
parsings of a single sentence.

Going back the Child Support Assement Act for a moment, it seemed to me
that there were places where the complexity, or straight forward
incomprehensibility, arose at times because an attempt was made to
express in words something that in fact should properly have been
expressed in algebra!

Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor
>>>> their judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things
>>>> resulting in something illogical as hell. In this case it is a
>>>> fairly clear. This is the relevant section:
>>>
>>> They certainly don't have a monopoly on that. You perhaps saw my
>>> comments about the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>>
>>> I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing -
>>> but that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation. The
>>> wording that makes this stuff opaque to the man in the street is
>>> supposed to make it precise, but it doesn't seem to achieve that.
>>
>>
>> That's always going to be a problem for you if you have the
>> expectation that legislation works like a formula in algebra. It
>> doesn't. There are lots of ways of making sense of particular
>> legislation, or getting into a position to appreciate it, but try
>> this one - the penumbra effect. The legislation has a specific
>> objective, and usually meets this. As you move out from the core to
>> the penumbra, it becomes less certain, even a little woolly. That's
>> where a rule of reason can help you move through the shadows. A
>> special challenge is articulating that specific objective that is
>> the core. It will be there, but not always explicit.
>>
>> And you might like sausages, and the law. That's no guarantee that
>> you would like to see them actually being made.
>
> I have no problem with the penumbra effect - it's in any case inherent
> in any formulation that uses words because they have that as an
> intrinsic property.
>
> But that's no excuse for sloppy drafting that leaves open multiple
> parsings of a single sentence.
>
> Going back the Child Support Assement Act for a moment, it seemed to
> me that there were places where the complexity, or straight forward
> incomprehensibility, arose at times because an attempt was made to
> express in words something that in fact should properly have been
> expressed in algebra!

Sometimes (ie often) the government does not want to say expressly "No, you
can't have that!". The result can be the dreaded weasel words where the
real meaning is sanitised. Or even more frustrating, the gap in the law
that you suspect was deliberate. If you know that is happening, you are
better able to deal with it in interpreting the language.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419BCF25.10309@not.at.this.address:

>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
>> I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor their
>> judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things resulting in
>> something illogical as hell. In this case it is a fairly clear. This
>> is the relevant section:
>
> They certainly don't have a monopoly on that. You perhaps saw my
> comments about the Child Support Assessment Act.
>
> I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing - but
> that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation.

IOW they don't make laws that suit you and your little fantasy world.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419BD850.7030703@not.at.this.address:

>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't have a very high opinion of US laws or law makers - nor
>>>>their judiciary. They often make a pigs breakfast of things
>>>>resulting in something illogical as hell. In this case it is a
>>>>fairly clear. This is the relevant section:
>>>
>>>They certainly don't have a monopoly on that. You perhaps saw my
>>>comments about the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>>
>>>I used to think that legal draughtsmen knew what they were doing -
>>>but that was before I started trying to comprehend legislation. The
>>>wording that makes this stuff opaque to the man in the street is
>>>supposed to make it precise, but it doesn't seem to achieve that.
>>
>>
>> That's always going to be a problem for you if you have the
>> expectation that legislation works like a formula in algebra. It
>> doesn't. There are lots of ways of making sense of particular
>> legislation, or getting into a position to appreciate it, but try
>> this one - the penumbra effect. The legislation has a specific
>> objective, and usually meets this. As you move out from the core to
>> the penumbra, it becomes less certain, even a little woolly. That's
>> where a rule of reason can help you move through the shadows. A
>> special challenge is articulating that specific objective that is the
>> core. It will be there, but not always explicit.
>>
>> And you might like sausages, and the law. That's no guarantee that
>> you would like to see them actually being made.
>
> I have no problem with the penumbra effect - it's in any case inherent
> in any formulation that uses words because they have that as an
> intrinsic property.
>
> But that's no excuse for sloppy drafting that leaves open multiple
> parsings of a single sentence.
>
> Going back the Child Support Assement Act for a moment,

Silly bitch.

Bertie

[noon]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:419BD850.7030703@not.at.this.address...
>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>>

> Going back the Child Support Assement Act for a moment, it seemed to me
> that there were places where the complexity, or straight forward
> incomprehensibility, arose at times because an attempt was made to express
> in words something that in fact should properly have been expressed in
> algebra!
>

Algebra? YES - half each minus all they had before marriage and stay with
the owner. Just my dream...

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:

>>There is another general legal principle that if you've
>>been prosecuted for an offence on a given set of facts in one
>>jurisdiction, then you cannot be prosecuted again on the same facts
>> in another, so there's no danger that a person could find
>>themselves hauled before every court in the world.
>
>
> If you are referring to the double jeopardy rule, it is strictly a bar to
> prosecution in the same jurisdiction, rather than different jurisdictions.
> The problem of the same conduct being made criminal in several jurisdictions
> is of a different dimension. It exists, for example, with piracy and
> anti-slavery laws, and more recently with anti-terrorism laws.
>

I haven't come back on this.

Reviewing my own posting, I've realised that my choice of words didn't
help - and didn't properly convey what was in my mind. What I was
_thinking_ related to convictions rather than prosecutions. A principle
that says that if you've been convicted, and thereby punished, for a
particular crime in one jurisdiction, then you're not subject to being
punished again for it in another jurisdiction. I haven't any citations,
but so far I haven't looked that hard.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419D2533.5010807@not.at.this.address:

>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>>There is another general legal principle that if you've
>>>been prosecuted for an offence on a given set of facts in one
>>>jurisdiction, then you cannot be prosecuted again on the same facts
>>> in another, so there's no danger that a person could find
>>>themselves hauled before every court in the world.
>>
>>
>> If you are referring to the double jeopardy rule, it is strictly a
>> bar to prosecution in the same jurisdiction, rather than different
>> jurisdictions. The problem of the same conduct being made criminal in
>> several jurisdictions is of a different dimension. It exists, for
>> example, with piracy and anti-slavery laws, and more recently with
>> anti-terrorism laws.
>>
>
> I haven't come back on this.
>
> Reviewing my own posting, I've realised that my choice of words didn't
> help -

Stupid ****, they never do.


Bertie