For your PC needs
This appears to be a useful tabulation of laws related to cybercrimes in
the USA.
http://www.ccmostwanted.com/LL/us.htm
Sylvia.
This appears to be a useful tabulation of laws related to cybercrimes in
the USA.
http://www.ccmostwanted.com/LL/us.htm
Sylvia.
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?
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.
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/genera...hapter_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.
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.
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/genera...hapter_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.
>
> 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.
I claim no expertise in interpreting the laws of the USA or its States. But
the same care has to be taken with the general legal background there as
here.
The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the deeming
provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3 (b). Usually,
you look for a connection with the legislating entity, here the State of NC.
This reflects the principle of territoriality in international. The
connection is usually that the prohibited act is done there, that the victim
is there, or that the perpetrator (I've watched those US tv crimes series,
too) is there.
Paragraph (c) provides some deeming rules for the offences. It gives three
scenarios, where there is an offence under the primary offence provision.
First, where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where
the message was originally sent. Second, where there is an offence, it is
deemed to have been committed where it was originally received in NC.
Third, where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where
it was first viewed by anyone in NC.
Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message to
aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which Bertie has done,
on the face of it there might be thought to have been an offence committed
by Bertie. However, Bertie and Sylvia are not in NC, and we assume that the
message was not sent from NC nor received in NC. What does that mean? It
means that there is no offence under the primary offence provisions.
What if you apply the deeming provision? Well, my first problem is that
there is no offence for the deeming provision to do anything. But putting
that aside, which of the three scenarios applies? It seems none. It is not
at all likely that a law enforcement officer in NC could first view the
message sent to aus.legal.
As indicated above, I claim no expertise in this legislation, but my
expectation is that a court in NC would find that there was no offence
against NC law. Moreover, I would expect that similar legislation would
generally get the same limiting interpretation to restrict the scope of a
jurisdiction's laws so that they were not open-ended in applying to everyone
and everything.
Galimatias wrote:
> 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/genera...hapter_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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> I claim no expertise in interpreting the laws of the USA or its States. But
> the same care has to be taken with the general legal background there as
> here.
>
> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the deeming
> provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3 (b). Usually,
> you look for a connection with the legislating entity, here the State of NC.
> This reflects the principle of territoriality in international. The
> connection is usually that the prohibited act is done there, that the victim
> is there, or that the perpetrator (I've watched those US tv crimes series,
> too) is there.
>
> Paragraph (c) provides some deeming rules for the offences. It gives three
> scenarios, where there is an offence under the primary offence provision.
> First, where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where
> the message was originally sent. Second, where there is an offence, it is
> deemed to have been committed where it was originally received in NC.
> Third, where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where
> it was first viewed by anyone in NC.
>
> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message to
> aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which Bertie has done,
> on the face of it there might be thought to have been an offence committed
> by Bertie. However, Bertie and Sylvia are not in NC, and we assume that the
> message was not sent from NC nor received in NC. What does that mean? It
> means that there is no offence under the primary offence provisions.
>
> What if you apply the deeming provision? Well, my first problem is that
> there is no offence for the deeming provision to do anything. But putting
> that aside, which of the three scenarios applies? It seems none. It is not
> at all likely that a law enforcement officer in NC could first view the
> message sent to aus.legal.
>
> As indicated above, I claim no expertise in this legislation, but my
> expectation is that a court in NC would find that there was no offence
> against NC law. Moreover, I would expect that similar legislation would
> generally get the same limiting interpretation to restrict the scope of a
> jurisdiction's laws so that they were not open-ended in applying to everyone
> and everything.
What then do you see as the function of the deeming provision?
On the law enforcement officer argument I might agree if looking at the
communication represented an exercise of a power granted as a result of
the suspicion of the existence of an offence. But it's not. Any one can
look at the communication, so certainly a law enforcement officer can,
even if no offence has been committed.
On the issue of territoriality, this has obviously been a vexed question
in the context of cybercrime. There would seem to be a general public
interest in seeing that such crimes can be prosecuted somewhere. 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.
Sylvia.
"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
sednews:q1ecvqh3idle8o2.171120041049@127.0.0.1:
> 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/genera...ter/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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I claim no expertise in interpreting the laws of the USA or its
> States. But the same care has to be taken with the general legal
> background there as here.
>
> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating entity,
> here the State of NC. This reflects the principle of territoriality in
> international. The connection is usually that the prohibited act is
> done there, that the victim is there, or that the perpetrator (I've
> watched those US tv crimes series, too) is there.
>
> Paragraph (c) provides some deeming rules for the offences. It gives
> three scenarios, where there is an offence under the primary offence
> provision. First, where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been
> committed where the message was originally sent. Second, where there
> is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where it was
> originally received in NC. Third, where there is an offence, it is
> deemed to have been committed where it was first viewed by anyone in
> NC.
>
> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message to
> aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which Bertie has
> done, on the face of it there might be thought to have been an offence
> committed by Bertie. However, Bertie and Sylvia are not in NC, and we
> assume that the message was not sent from NC nor received in NC. What
> does that mean? It means that there is no offence under the primary
> offence provisions.
>
> What if you apply the deeming provision? Well, my first problem is
> that there is no offence for the deeming provision to do anything.
> But putting that aside, which of the three scenarios applies? It
> seems none. It is not at all likely that a law enforcement officer in
> NC could first view the message sent to aus.legal.
>
> As indicated above, I claim no expertise in this legislation, but my
> expectation is that a court in NC would find that there was no offence
> against NC law. Moreover, I would expect that similar legislation
> would generally get the same limiting interpretation to restrict the
> scope of a jurisdiction's laws so that they were not open-ended in
> applying to everyone and everything.
>
Oh very good.
IOW you fjukwits can go and cry in your beer.
It's been tried,
many times.
But hey,don't let me piss on your parade..
Knock yourselves out.
Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhha hwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwha
hwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahw!
Bertie
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419a9641$0$2676$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> 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/genera...pter/chapter_1
>> 4.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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> I claim no expertise in interpreting the laws of the USA or its
>> States. But the same care has to be taken with the general legal
>> background there as here.
>>
>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating entity,
>> here the State of NC. This reflects the principle of territoriality
>> in international. The connection is usually that the prohibited act
>> is done there, that the victim is there, or that the perpetrator
>> (I've watched those US tv crimes series, too) is there.
>>
>> Paragraph (c) provides some deeming rules for the offences. It gives
>> three scenarios, where there is an offence under the primary offence
>> provision. First, where there is an offence, it is deemed to have
>> been committed where the message was originally sent. Second, where
>> there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where it was
>> originally received in NC. Third, where there is an offence, it is
>> deemed to have been committed where it was first viewed by anyone in
>> NC.
>>
>> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message
>> to aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which Bertie
>> has done, on the face of it there might be thought to have been an
>> offence committed by Bertie. However, Bertie and Sylvia are not in
>> NC, and we assume that the message was not sent from NC nor received
>> in NC. What does that mean? It means that there is no offence under
>> the primary offence provisions.
>>
>> What if you apply the deeming provision? Well, my first problem is
>> that there is no offence for the deeming provision to do anything.
>> But putting that aside, which of the three scenarios applies? It
>> seems none. It is not at all likely that a law enforcement officer
>> in NC could first view the message sent to aus.legal.
>>
>> As indicated above, I claim no expertise in this legislation, but my
>> expectation is that a court in NC would find that there was no
>> offence against NC law. Moreover, I would expect that similar
>> legislation would generally get the same limiting interpretation to
>> restrict the scope of a jurisdiction's laws so that they were not
>> open-ended in applying to everyone and everything.
>
> What then do you see as the function of the deeming provision?
>
> On the law enforcement officer argument I might agree if looking at
> the communication represented an exercise of a power granted as a
> result of the suspicion of the existence of an offence. But it's not.
> Any one can look at the communication, so certainly a law enforcement
> officer can, even if no offence has been committed.
>
> On the issue of territoriality, this has obviously been a vexed
> question in the context of cybercrime. There would seem to be a
> general public interest in seeing that such crimes can be prosecuted
> somewhere.
Public interest?
Stating the fact that you are astupid **** is a crime?
Bwawhahwhhahw!
In your tiny little mind you fjukwit.
Bertie
Galimatias wrote:
> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the deeming
> provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3 (b). Usually,
> you look for a connection with the legislating entity, here the State of NC.
I missed that point. You should add to your hypothetical case below that
the news server used by Bertie was under the control of an entity
operating in NC.
> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message to
> aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which Bertie has done,
> on the face of it there might be thought to have been an offence committed
> by Bertie.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> 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/genera...hapter_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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I claim no expertise in interpreting the laws of the USA or its
>> States. But the same care has to be taken with the general legal
>> background there as here.
>>
>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating
>> entity, here the State of NC. This reflects the principle of
>> territoriality in international. The connection is usually that the
>> prohibited act is done there, that the victim is there, or that the
>> perpetrator (I've watched those US tv crimes series, too) is there.
>>
>> Paragraph (c) provides some deeming rules for the offences. It
>> gives three scenarios, where there is an offence under the primary
>> offence provision. First, where there is an offence, it is deemed to
>> have been committed where the message was originally sent. Second,
>> where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where
>> it was originally received in NC. Third, where there is an offence,
>> it is deemed to have been committed where it was first viewed by
>> anyone in NC.
>>
>> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message
>> to aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which
>> Bertie has done, on the face of it there might be thought to have
>> been an offence committed by Bertie. However, Bertie and Sylvia are
>> not in NC, and we assume that the message was not sent from NC nor
>> received in NC. What does that mean? It means that there is no
>> offence under the primary offence provisions.
>>
>> What if you apply the deeming provision? Well, my first problem is
>> that there is no offence for the deeming provision to do anything.
>> But putting that aside, which of the three scenarios applies? It
>> seems none. It is not at all likely that a law enforcement officer
>> in NC could first view the message sent to aus.legal.
>>
>> As indicated above, I claim no expertise in this legislation, but my
>> expectation is that a court in NC would find that there was no
>> offence against NC law. Moreover, I would expect that similar
>> legislation would generally get the same limiting interpretation to
>> restrict the scope of a jurisdiction's laws so that they were not
>> open-ended in applying to everyone and everything.
>
> What then do you see as the function of the deeming provision?
It seems to operate more as a limiting provision, rather than expanding the
scope of the primary offence provisions.
>
> On the law enforcement officer argument I might agree if looking at
> the communication represented an exercise of a power granted as a
> result of the suspicion of the existence of an offence. But it's not.
> Any one can look at the communication, so certainly a law enforcement
> officer can, even if no offence has been committed.
It seems that the offence provisions are mainly aimed at normal email, where
the message is sent to the person being stalked - see the definition of
"Electronic mail", for example. It is also not obvious that posting to
Usenet, such as aus.legal, falls within the offence provisions, given the
definitions of "Electronic communication" and "electronic mail" and the way
they work in the offence provisions.
> On the issue of territoriality, this has obviously been a vexed
> question in the context of cybercrime. There would seem to be a
> general public interest in seeing that such crimes can be prosecuted
> somewhere.
Agreed. There is a growing awareness that international cooperation is
required, supported by appropriate treaties.
> 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.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419a9c73$0$12165$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au:
>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating entity,
>> here the State of NC.
>
> I missed that point. You should add to your hypothetical case below
> that the news server used by Bertie was under the control of an entity
> operating in NC.
>
I'm sure they'll be amused to hear that, fjukwit
bertie
"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
sednews:3ypczpbbu4w8x1q.171120041141@127.0.0.1:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Galimatias wrote:
>>
>>> 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/genera...ter/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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> I claim no expertise in interpreting the laws of the USA or its
>>> States. But the same care has to be taken with the general legal
>>> background there as here.
>>>
>>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating
>>> entity, here the State of NC. This reflects the principle of
>>> territoriality in international. The connection is usually that the
>>> prohibited act is done there, that the victim is there, or that the
>>> perpetrator (I've watched those US tv crimes series, too) is there.
>>>
>>> Paragraph (c) provides some deeming rules for the offences. It
>>> gives three scenarios, where there is an offence under the primary
>>> offence provision. First, where there is an offence, it is deemed to
>>> have been committed where the message was originally sent. Second,
>>> where there is an offence, it is deemed to have been committed where
>>> it was originally received in NC. Third, where there is an offence,
>>> it is deemed to have been committed where it was first viewed by
>>> anyone in NC.
>>>
>>> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message
>>> to aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which
>>> Bertie has done, on the face of it there might be thought to have
>>> been an offence committed by Bertie. However, Bertie and Sylvia are
>>> not in NC, and we assume that the message was not sent from NC nor
>>> received in NC. What does that mean? It means that there is no
>>> offence under the primary offence provisions.
>>>
>>> What if you apply the deeming provision? Well, my first problem is
>>> that there is no offence for the deeming provision to do anything.
>>> But putting that aside, which of the three scenarios applies? It
>>> seems none. It is not at all likely that a law enforcement officer
>>> in NC could first view the message sent to aus.legal.
>>>
>>> As indicated above, I claim no expertise in this legislation, but my
>>> expectation is that a court in NC would find that there was no
>>> offence against NC law. Moreover, I would expect that similar
>>> legislation would generally get the same limiting interpretation to
>>> restrict the scope of a jurisdiction's laws so that they were not
>>> open-ended in applying to everyone and everything.
>>
>> What then do you see as the function of the deeming provision?
>
> It seems to operate more as a limiting provision, rather than
> expanding the scope of the primary offence provisions.
>>
>> On the law enforcement officer argument I might agree if looking at
>> the communication represented an exercise of a power granted as a
>> result of the suspicion of the existence of an offence. But it's not.
>> Any one can look at the communication, so certainly a law enforcement
>> officer can, even if no offence has been committed.
>
> It seems that the offence provisions are mainly aimed at normal email,
> where the message is sent to the person being stalked - see the
> definition of "Electronic mail", for example. It is also not obvious
> that posting to Usenet, such as aus.legal, falls within the offence
> provisions, given the definitions of "Electronic communication" and
> "electronic mail" and the way they work in the offence provisions.
>
> 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.
What fjukwits you really are.
Bertie
Galimatias wrote:
>
> 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.
No - I'm pretty sure there's another generally accepted principle - I'll
have to find some citations - but I have a lunch date. I'll get back to
that later on today.
BTW, I note in passing that someone around here seems to have had his
cage seriously rattled.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:419aa113$0$25115$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au:
>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> No - I'm pretty sure there's another generally accepted principle -
> I'll have to find some citations - but I have a lunch date. I'll get
> back to that later on today.
>
> BTW, I note in passing that someone around here seems to have had his
> cage seriously rattled.
Bwawhahwhhahwhahwh!
God you're a fjukwit
Bertie
Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating
>> entity, here the State of NC.
>
> I missed that point. You should add to your hypothetical case below
> that the news server used by Bertie was under the control of an entity
> operating in NC.
>
>> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message
>> to aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which
>> Bertie has done, on the face of it there might be thought to have
>> been an offence committed by Bertie.
I see. A connection with NC is that the message from Bertie to a Usenet
group passes through a newsserver in NC.
This factor does not seem to change anything, except that item (4) of the
primary offence provisions now gets a look. It deals with the person who,
for example, runs a newsserver in NC. If that person (including a legal
person) knowingly permitted their newsserver to be used for the purpose of
committing an offence against another of the primary provions, they would
commit an offence. It's a sort of aiding and abetting provision.
However, unless there is an offence, item (4) will not run. No doubt the
threat of prosecution under item (4) has some effect, eg on an ISP in NC,
and also on a newsserver in NC, but this is the standard use of a
sledgehammer to crack a nut in individual cases.
Galimatias wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
> sednews:419a9c73$0$12165$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au:
>
>>
>>
>> Galimatias wrote:
>>
>>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating
>>> entity, here the State of NC.
>>
>> I missed that point. You should add to your hypothetical case below
>> that the news server used by Bertie was under the control of an
>> entity operating in NC.
>>
>
> I'm sure they'll be amused to hear that, fjukwit
>
>
> bertie
I didn't write that, Bertie. Not a very intelligent move.
"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
sednews:kkmfp2rkg1gzdr4.171120041209@127.0.0.1:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Galimatias wrote:
>>
>>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating
>>> entity, here the State of NC.
>>
>> I missed that point. You should add to your hypothetical case below
>> that the news server used by Bertie was under the control of an
>> entity operating in NC.
>>
>>> Making up a hypothetical case, if Bertie the Bunyip sends a message
>>> to aus.legal that refers to Sylvia Else in the manner in which
>>> Bertie has done, on the face of it there might be thought to have
>>> been an offence committed by Bertie.
>
> I see. A connection with NC is that the message from Bertie to a
> Usenet group passes through a newsserver in NC.
>
> This factor does not seem to change anything, except that item (4) of
> the primary offence provisions now gets a look. It deals with the
> person who, for example, runs a newsserver in NC. If that person
> (including a legal person) knowingly permitted their newsserver to be
> used for the purpose of committing an offence against another of the
> primary provions, they would commit an offence. It's a sort of aiding
> and abetting provision.
>
> However, unless there is an offence, item (4) will not run. No doubt
> the threat of prosecution under item (4) has some effect, eg on an ISP
> in NC, and also on a newsserver in NC, but this is the standard use of
> a sledgehammer to crack a nut in individual cases.
>
Snort!
Bertie
"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org>
sednews:r7oa7ymnzrkzvbw.171120041210@127.0.0.1:
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
>> sednews:419a9c73$0$12165$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Galimatias wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole of the offence provision has to be considered, not the
>>>> deeming provision in isolation. The four offences are in 14-196.3
>>>> (b). Usually, you look for a connection with the legislating
>>>> entity, here the State of NC.
>>>
>>> I missed that point. You should add to your hypothetical case below
>>> that the news server used by Bertie was under the control of an
>>> entity operating in NC.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure they'll be amused to hear that, fjukwit
>>
>>
>> bertie
>
> I didn't write that, Bertie. Not a very intelligent move.
Ya think?
Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhw!
Wathca gonna do about it fjukwit?
Bertie
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.
>
> What fjukwits you really are.
IKYABWAI
"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.
>>
>> What fjukwits you really are.
>
> IKYABWAI
>
We shall see.
Bertie
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote