The latest from TechCrunch
- California Bill Criminalizing Online Impersonations In Effect Starting Today
- My 23-Year-Old Self Was Wrong About Salon.com. Like, Really Wrong.
| California Bill Criminalizing Online Impersonations In Effect Starting Today | Top |
| California’s SB 1411, which adds a layer of criminal and civil penalties for certain online impersonations, goes into effect starting today. The consequences include a fine of up to $1,000, and/ or up to a year in jail. So don’t go and do something crazy like impersonate Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Facebook. There may be consequences. The full text and a summary of the bill are below. There’s a good overview and analysis of it as well, on ZDNet . The state has created a new crime, and a new section is being added to the penal code. There has to be intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person – not necessarily the person you are impersonating. Free speech issues, including satire and parody, aren’t addressed in the text of the bill. The courts will likely sort it out. Hopefully without my direct participation. SB 1411, Simitian. Impersonation: Internet. Existing law makes it a crime to falsely impersonate another in either his or her private or official capacity, as specified. Existing law also makes it a crime to knowingly access and, without permission, alter, damage, delete, destroy, or otherwise use any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data. For a violation thereof, in addition to specified criminal penalties, existing law authorizes an aggrieved party to bring a civil action against the violator, as specified. This bill would provide that any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means, as specified, for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would, in addition to the specified criminal penalties, authorize a person who suffers damage or loss to bring a civil action against any person who violates that provision, as specified. Because the bill would create a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 528.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 528.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d). (b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated. (c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social networking Internet Web site in another person’s name. (d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a) may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (g) of Section 502. (f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other law. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. | |
| My 23-Year-Old Self Was Wrong About Salon.com. Like, Really Wrong. | Top |
| A few hours to go until 2011, and I'm busy drawing up my list of New Year's resolutions. A major one: to stop writing about TechCrunch commenters. After all, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, it's like wrestling with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Still, that leaves me just enough time – eight hours, and counting – to sneak in one last journey over to the dark side. And perhaps it's fitting that the final salvo in my war against trolls has a happy ending. A Christmas miracle, even. It began this past Christmas day when I wrote a short post wishing TechCrunch readers a merry Christmas. Sure enough, within a few hours, the usual rag-tag band of trolls, freaks and illiterates who skulk around in the TechCrunch commentsphere arrived. One responder jumped i n to call me "A TOTAL f c k i n g RIGHT WING N U T C A S E" (caps theirs), adding "the twat doesn’t know shat about tech and worse doesn’t care for ‘PEOPLE’". Another (now deleted for reasons that will become clear in a moment) stood out for a couple of reasons: firstly, for addressing me as "bro" and secondly for his wish that I would "die a non-journalist". Wishing someone to die – journalist or not – struck me as a particularly un-Christmassy wish; so un-Chrismassy in fact, that I felt driven to reply, pointing out the various misspellings in his comment and offer seasons' greetings to TechCrunch's "illiterate college student readership." And that would normally be that. Generally speaking, anonymous trolls, like cockroaches, tend to scurry away the moment you shine a light on their idiocy. But this is where the Christmas miracle kicked in. A few hours later I received an email – via the contact form on my personal website – from the commenter in question. I'm not going to tell you exactly what he wrote, suffice it to say that he wanted to say sorry. No, really. Moreover, he wrote to say that, prompted by my sarcastic reply, he'd been driven to read some of the things I'd written in the past about trollishness and Internet anonymity and, more generally, my struggles with drinking and trying not to be a complete and total bastard . The result of his reading had been a complete change of heart: the one-time troll felt like crap for being mean on the Internet, much like I feel bad for all the people I hurt while I was drinking. I read the email at least half a dozen times before I could even start to think how to reply. Somehow our relationship had flipped on its head: now it was me who felt bad for being so quick to swat down his trollish comment. After all, even the most unpleasant little anonymous troll comment could have been written by a fundamentally good person who is having a bad day. I sent my new friend a preview PDF of my new (to be published in 2011) book , partly as a way to say "apology accepted" but also to reassure him that, no matter how much of a shit he feels for wishing me dead on TechCrunch, he still has a long way to go before he can compete with me on the dickish behaviour front. As I say, a Christmas miracle. And a reminder for everyone involved that the people we write about online are actually real people. All of which got me thinking about my own trollish past, and reminded me that I still owe a correction – an apology even – for something I wrote almost eight years ago, back in 2003, during my very first stint writing for the Guardian. At the time I was 23 years old and so, of course, I knew everything there was to know, not just about media and technology but about the Whole Entire World. And it was with that authority that I wrote an 800 word column about how Salon.com – then a mere eight years old – was struggling to attract enough paid readers to break even. They'd spent an impressive $81 million dollars to attract a relatively modest 60,000 subscribers – $1,300 per ($30 a year) subscriber as I cockily pointed out. How many Salon.com editors does it take to change a lightbulb? Ten. One to change the bulb and the other nine to piss $81m (£50m) up a wall. Not funny, but true. And my mocking didn't stop there. I went on to suggest that it was time for Salon to accept reality – that they've failed to prove that people want to pay for their particular brand of unremarkable journalism, and so should get out of the way and let other online publications have a chance to shine. Other online publications like the one, back in 2003, I just happened to be in the process of launching. Even by my own 23-year-old standards, the column was screamingly disingenuous and mean spirited; spurred far more by my competitive instincts than by any honest appraisal of their prospects or standards of journalism. “If you listen carefully you can almost hear the sound of money gurgling away. Advertisers’ money, investors’ money, subscribers’ money. Glug, glug, glug. It’s fair to say that had [Managing Editor, Scott] Rosenberg been the star of Brewster’s Millions, the film would have ended after about eight minutes.” And so it's appropriate then that over the next seven years, Salon enjoyed a near-constant succession of last laughs. Despite various false starts with paywalls and part-paywalls and "please help save independent journalism" pledge drives, they had their first profitable quarter in early 2005 and have kept their heads above water ever since. Not only that, but their journalism – both the quirky lifestyle stuff and their harder news reporting – has got better and stronger with every passing day. The publication reached another high point two weeks ago when Glenn Greenwald wrote a searing critique of the treatment of PFC Bradley Manning in Quantico. A week later , the United Nations announced an investigation into Manning's treatment. Along with Gmail, Arts and Letters Daily , the BBC and – oh, please - TechCrunch, it’s one of the five sites that I check every single day without fail. With 2011 looking sure to be the year of the iPad and ebook reader, it's easy to see Salon.com becoming even more popular – and profitable – in the coming months. So, yes, prompted by the Damascene conversion of one of my own former critics, I figured it's about time I made amends for the trollish behaviour of my early-20s self. Sorry Salon, you were right and I was dramatically wrong and the landscape of online journalism is all the better for that fact. Ok? Ok. Happy New Year everyone. | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment