Federal Court Blocks Washington State's Unconstitutional Cyberstalking Law

from the fixing-stupid dept

When legislators craft unconstitutional laws, it's a safe bet the first people to abuse them will be members of the government. We've seen this happen with outdated criminal defamation laws and the new wave of "Blue Lives Matter" legislation. Attempts to curb online evils like cyberbullying and revenge porn tend to disregard the First Amendment. If they're not challenged, they go on to be tools deployed by government officials to silence critics.

That's what happened in the state of Washington. A vociferous government critic found himself targeted by a displeased politician who used the state's cyberstalking law to obtain a very restrictive protective order to silence his online nemesis. As the federal court notes in its decision [PDF], the speech the critic engaged in is the very reason for the First Amendment's existence. (via Courthouse News)

Rynearson is an online author and activist who regularly writes online posts and comments to the public related to civil liberties, including about police abuse and the expansion of executive power in the wake of September 11. Rynearson’s writings are often critical—and sometimes harshly so—of local public figures and government officials. These writings are well within the traditions of independent American political discourse, and are intended both to raise the awareness of other citizens regarding the civil-liberties issues that Rynearson writes about, and to hold civic and political leaders accountable to the community through pointed criticism. This sort of expression is at the very heart of political speech which the First Amendment most strongly protects.

Rynearson's online posts were highly critical of politicians he felt didn't condemn the indefinite imprisonment of foreigners, something authorized by the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). One politician he felt was too enthralled with indefinite detention was Clarence Moriwaki.

[I]n February 2017, Rynearson wrote a series of public posts on Facebook criticizing Clarence Moriwaki, the founder of the Bainbridge Island Japanese-American Exclusion Memorial (“Memorial”), for failing to criticize Governor Inslee and President Obama for voting for/signing the NDAA. The thrust of Rynearson’s posts was that Moriwaki should be removed from his role as board member and de facto spokesperson for the Memorial because Moriwaki used the lessons of the internment, and his role with the Memorial, to criticize Republican politicians (chiefly, President Trump) in many media articles or appearances related to the Memorial, but failed to criticize Democratic politicians.

As the court notes, Rynearson used "invective" and "ridicule" to make his points. Moriwaki reported this ridicule (which, as the court points out, did not contain obscenity or threats) to local law enforcement. This did not result in an arrest, but Rynearson received a letter from the prosecutor notifying him she would "revisit" the possibility of prosecuting him if he didn't shut the hell up.

This also resulted in Moriwaki obtaining a protective order against Rynearson -- one that decided the First Amendment simply didn't exist.

For a period of time, from March 2017 to January 2018, Rynearson was also subject to a civil protection order imposed by the Bainbridge Island Municipal Court based on posts critical of Moriwaki. Moriwaki v. Rynearson, No. 17-2-01463-1, 2018 WL 733811, at *12 (Wash. Sup. Ct. Jan. 10, 2018). The cyberstalking statute was one of the statutes invoked by the Municipal Court in imposing the protection order. Moriwaki, 2018 WL 733811, at *5. The order imposed sharp limits on Rynearson’s speech, such as barring the use of Moriwaki’s name in the titles or domain names of webpages.

This order was vacated by the same court after Rynearson's Constitutional challenge. Now, Rynearson is challenging the law itself, pointing out (very reasonably) that the law's unconstitutional restrictions could see him on the receiving end of future protective orders or criminal charges.

The federal court says Washington's law is unconstitutionally overbroad, threatening a whole lot of protected speech.

Section 9.61.260(1)(b)’s breadth—by the plain meaning of its words—includes protected speech that is not exempted from protection by any of the recognized areas just described. Section 9.61.260(1)(b) criminalizes a large range of non-obscene, non-threatening speech, based only on (1) purportedly bad intent and (2) repetition or anonymity.

The state couldn't come up with much to defend its bad law -- just a couple of unpublished opinions that don't say quite what the state imagines they say. The federal court offers its rebuttal, which only cites the highest court in the land.

[T]he Supreme Court has consistently classified emotionally distressing or outrageous speech as protected, especially where that speech touches on matters of political, religious or public concern. This is because “in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide ‘adequate breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.”

With that, the federal court declares the law unconstitutional, handing Rynearson an injunction preventing the state of Washington from using the law against him.

Based on the record before the Court it is highly likely that in the final analysis the Court will declare the provision is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Anonymous speech uttered or typed with the intent to embarrass a person as here, is protected speech. The plain meaning of the italicized words render 9.61.260(1)(b) unconstitutional.

For the reasons given here, this Court concludes that RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) is facially unconstitutional.

The law is effectively dead. The only thing surprising about this is that the law has survived so long without being struck down. For 15 years, it's been illegal to "embarrass" people online. It took a politician abusing the law to silence a critic to finally get it struck down.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, cyberstalking, free speech, washington

DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe And Others Over A Smiley Emoji Tweet

from the our-tax-dollars-at-work dept

So, here's a fun one. Back in May, the Justice Department -- apparently lacking anything better to do with its time -- sent a subpoena to Twitter, demanding a whole bunch of information on a five Twitter users, including a few names that regular Techdirt readers may be familiar with:

If you can't see that, it's a subpoena asking for information on the following five Twitter users: @dawg8u ("Mike Honcho"), @abtnatural ("Virgil"), @Popehat (Ken White), @associatesmind (Keith Lee) and @PogoWasRight (Dissent Doe). I'm pretty sure we've talked about three of those five in previous Techdirt posts. Either way, they're folks who are quite active in legal/privacy issues on Twitter.

And what info does the DOJ want on them? Well, basically everything:

1. Names (including subscriber names, user names, and screen names);
2. Addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, and e-mail addresses);
3. Records of session times and durations, and the temporarily assigned network addresses (such as Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses) associated with those sessions;
4. Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
5. Telephone or instrument numbers (including MAC addresses, Electronic Serial Numbers ("ESN"), Mobile Electronic Identity Numbers ("MEIN"), Mobile Equipment Identifier ("MEID"), Mobile Identification Numbers ("MIN"), Subscriber Identity Modules ("SIM"), Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network Numbers ("MSISDND"), International Mobile Subscriber Identifier ("IMSI"), or International Mobile Equipment Identities ("IMEI"));
6. Other subscriber numbers or identities, or associated accounts (including the registration Internet Protocol ("IP") address);
7. Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.

That's a fair bit of information. Why the hell would the DOJ want all that? Would you believe it appears to be over a single tweet from someone to each of those five individuals that consists entirely of a smiley face? I wish I was kidding. Here's the tweet and then I'll get into the somewhat convoluted back story. The tweet is up as I write this, but here's a screenshot in case it disappears:

And, just to make it clear, here are all the users "in the conversation" on that tweet (since Twitter now buries at least some of that information):

You'll note that all of the names are the same names as listed in the subpoena above (as a point of clarification, the four users listed below were already in the conversation, so their metadata gets swept along, and then the tweeter, Justin Shafer, is also adding in @PogoWasRight to the conversation).

So, who is Justin Shafer, and what the hell is all of this about? Buckle up, because it'll take a bit of background to get around to this tweet (and, yes, it will still feel very, very, stupid that this subpoena was ever issued). First up: Justin Shafer is a security researcher, who has some history spotting bad encryption. Go back to 2013 and he had spotted a weak not really "encryption" standard put out by Faircom. Once it was called out as weak, vulnerable and not really encryption, Faircom rebranded it from the "Faircom Standard Encryption" to "Data Camouflage" since the reporting by Shafer showed that it wasn't really encryption at all -- but just a weak attempt at obfuscation.

Fast forward to late 2013, when a dentist named Rob Meaglia alerted some of his patients that a computer was stolen from his offices with "medical records and dental insurance information." But, Dr. Meaglia told his patients that the records system they were using, Dentrix, made by a company called Henry Schein, Inc., had all of that data encrypted. Except it appeared that Dentrix was actually using Faircom's "Data Camouflage" and not actual encryption. And, as that link notes, Henry Schein, Inc. had been informed of this problem months earlier, around the time Faircom admitted it wasn't actual encryption.

In May of 2016, the FTC announced a settlement with Henry Schein, Inc. over the claim that it "falsely advertised the level of encryption it provided to protect patient data." Kudos to Justin Shafer.

But, literally days later, the FBI was raiding Justin Shafer's home and taking all of his computers. This was not specifically about the Harry Schein case, but since Shafer had continued to investigate poor data security practices involving dentists, he'd come across an FTP server operated by another dental software company, Patterson Dental, which makes "Eaglesoft," a dental practice management software product. Shafer had discovered an openly available anonymous FTP server with patient data. Shafer did the right thing as a security researcher, and alerted Patterson. However, rather than thanking Shafer for discovering the server they had left with patient data exposed, Patterson Dental argued that Shafer had violated the CFAA in accessing the open anonymous FTP server. Hence the FBI raid.

Not surprisingly, Shafer was none too pleased with the FBI's decision to raid his home and take all of his electronics. In particular, it appears he was especially annoyed with FBI Special Agent Nathan Hopp (who he initially believed was actually Nathan "Hawk.")

Fast forward to March of this year, to an entirely different story: the FBI arresting John Rivello for "assaulting" journalist Kurt Eichenwald with a tweet. If you follow Techdirt related stuff, you probably remember that whole story. Lots of people, including us, posted the criminal complaint that was put together by one Nathan Hopp, a special agent at the FBI.

It appears that the Rivello arrest and subsequent news coverage suddenly alerted Shafer to the fact that "Nathan Hawk" was actually "Nathan Hopp" and Shafer began a bit of an open source "investigation" on Twitter. I wouldn't necessarily call the following tweets "smart," but Shafer, finally aware of the FBI agent who lead the raid on his house, started trying to find any public info on Hopp -- and his family. Now, searching out his family isn't great. But it does appear that he was just looking up publicly available information:

At this point, the FBI decided to start protecting its own. Seeing as the guy whose home the FBI had ridiculously raided a year earlier was now tweeting some info about one of its special agents, the FBI started putting together a new criminal complaint arguing that all of the tweets above amounted to "Cyber Stalking" under 18 USC 2216A. This seems like a huge stretch, because that law requires "intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance...."

Either way, about the time all of this was happening, Ken "Popehat" White had started another Twitter thread about the Rivello arrest, leading Virgil and Keith Lee to respond about the criminal complaint, eventually leading Mike Honcho to note "Nathan Hopp is the least busy FBI agent of all time." It is to that tweet that Shafer replies with his smiley emoji and adds or cc's, Dissent Doe to the conversation:

And that takes us to 10 days later, when a new criminal complaint against Shafer is issued*, arguing that those tweets were criminal Cyber Stalking. And because part of that included his smiley emoji in response to the Popehat thread/Honcho tweet, the DOJ felt it necessary to issue a subpoena demanding basically all info on those 5 Twitter users (including Popehat, a former Assistant US Attorney whose info is pretty easy to find on Google). Perhaps the FBI somehow thinks that Shafer was really behind those other accounts or something -- but anyone with even the slightest level of competence should realize that's unlikely -- and that's got nothing to do with anything here anyway.

* As an aside, look closely at that criminal complaint against Shafer. I have no idea why but it appears that the FBI/DOJ is so clueless that rather than submitting the final complaint, they actually submitted the copy showing the "comments" on the Word doc they were using to prepare the complaint -- which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law... but this story is crazy enough without spending too much time on that.

Twitter is apparently fighting back against this subpoena. And even though it was issued back in May, a few days ago, the company alerted the individuals that the DOJ was demanding info on. Dissent Doe has already stated publicly a plan to move to quash the subpoena as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the others named take similar steps.

But, really, take a step back and everything about this situation is crazy. Going after Shafer the first time was crazy. Going after him again for supposed "Cyber Stalking" over a few harmless tweets was clearly just the FBI trying to protect its own from being embarrassed online. Then, to subpoena a ton of info on 5 totally unrelated Twitter users... just because Shafer tweeted a smiley face emoticon at them? What the fuck is the DOJ up to? Doesn't Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner, who signed the subpoena, have better things to do with his time, like going after actual criminals, rather than harassing people for tweeting?

Filed Under: cfaa, cyberstalking, dissent doe, doj, douglas gardner, emoji, encryption, fbi, fbi raid, justin shafer, keith lee, ken white, nathan hopp, pogowasright, popehat, subpoena, tweets
Companies: henry schein, patterson dental, twitter

Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet

from the trolling-with-a-deadly-gif dept

Late last year, we wrote about the crazy case in which journalist Kurt Eichenwald was suing an anonymous Twitter troll, claiming that the troll had sent Eichenwald a flashing gif designed to cause some small percentage of epileptics to have a seizure. Eichenwald claimed that it had worked and he'd had a seizure on the spot. As we noted at the time, we're no fans of Eichenwald. In our opinion, he's an absolutely terrible journalist with a fairly long history of really weird issues, and a strange obsession with massively overselling stories. He has me blocked on Twitter and has indicated that he's no fan of us either.

Still, the lawsuit was interesting. At a first pass, the very idea that a "tweet" could be a weapon seems preposterous, and even troubling. But as we noted in that story, Eichenwald actually could have a legitimate case. We cited a bunch of lawyers and law professors, who each laid out why a tweeted image, deliberately designed to cause real harm to someone, could certainly violate the law. Of course, many people (reasonably!) wondered if the troll would ever be found. It's not too difficult to hide your identity behind a fake Twitter account (in this case, the rather unsubtle "@jew_goldstein"). But, then again, perhaps we didn't expect that the troll would do this:

That, is an image of John Rivello holding up his own driver's license. And it's attached to the very iCloud account that was attached the iPhone that he used, via an "untraceable" Tracfone prepaid account, to set up the @jew_goldstein Twitter account. And we know that because the DOJ arrested Rivello late last week and released the criminal complaint and affidavit that explains how Rivello the troll was tracked down. It's quite fascinating.

The short version is this: when setting up the Twitter account, a real phone number was used. That information was obtained via a search warrant to Twitter -- which also turned up a bunch of direct messages that are kinda useful to prosecutors:

If you can't see those, it's a series of Direct Messages from the "@jew_goldstein" account, saying things like that Eichenwald "deserves to have his liver pecked out by a pack of emus." "I hope this sends him into a seizure." "Spammed this at [Eichenwald] let's see if he dies." "I know he has epilepsy."

Those statements are kinda useful for law enforcement when charging someone under a cyberstalking law -- 18 USC 2261A that includes this:

Whoever--

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A)

That whole "intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate" part is helped along with direct tweets saying something like "I hope this sends him into a seizure" and "let's see if he dies."

Anyway, back to the investigation. With that info in hand from Twitter, investigators asked AT&T for info on the phone number associated with the account (it appears this wasn't via a search warrant -- it looks like law enforcement just asked and AT&T responded, which is kind of consistent with the way AT&T seems to handle these sorts of things). AT&T noted that it was a Tracfone prepaid account, so there was no subscriber info... but also noted that it was using a specific model iPhone.

So, from there, the DOJ sent a search warrant to Apple about the iCloud account associated with that phone number, and that's where they hit jackpot. Not only did they get back an Apple ID with the name John Rivello, but they got the photo above. And this:

If you can't see it, that's the flashing gif that @jew_goldstein sent Eichenwald and it says "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts." This was the same one that Eichenwald's wife found on Kurt's computer when she found him having a seizure. The affidavit includes a screenshot she took of his computer screen showing that exact gif. Oh, and also stored in Rivello's iCloud? A screenshot of an edited Wikipedia page of Eichenwald, claiming that he'd died the day after the gif was set. And also screen shots of an article about epilepsy seizure triggers, and an article about how the police were trying to track down the troll.

So that's a lot of pretty damning evidence. As lawyer Keith Lee notes, it's something of a miracle he was tracked down. Even though he took some fairly basic precautions to cover his tracks (fake account, Tracfone phone connection), he didn't take that many and didn't seem to realize how many other ways there were to track him down.

I know that some have raised concerns about the idea that anyone could face criminal charges for a tweet -- but as we explained when Eichenwald first filed his (civil) lawsuit, there are legit causes of action here -- and it's a fairly rare fact pattern that would lead to these things. It would have to be a tweet or other message that is likely to cause actual harm -- which is a very, very, very limited set of tweets. And then there has to be the intent to cause that harm. In this case, it actually appears that all of that is legitimately in place.

Of course, I'll let the criminal defense lawyers chime in here with a deeper analysis, but in Keith Lee's post (prior to the actual charges being released) he pointed to that stalking law, and noted a few problems with it, including that it requires that the defendant travels across state lines and tends to require a pattern of such actions rather than a single action. So there may be some issues there, though it wouldn't surprise me to see an updated complaint with other charges that may be tougher to deal with. So, yes, while there are reasonable concerns about anyone being arrested for a tweet, this does seem like a fairly specific case where at least some sort of legal action does make sense. This wasn't just annoying someone with a meme -- it was causing a real physical attack that could have resulted in death. And it was done on purpose. Don't do that.

Either way, we now have an actual indictment for a crime of assault with a deadly tweet.

If you can't see that, it's the grand jury referral, noting that the offense is "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon" and it notes that:

... said defendant did use and exhibit a deadly weapon, to wit: a Tweet and a Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) and an Electronic Device and Hands, during the commission of the assault.

We live in such strange times.

Filed Under: assault, cyberstalking, doj, epilepsy, fbi, john rivello, kurt eichenwald, stalking, trolling
Companies: twitter

Illinois Court Says State's Cyberstalking Law Is Unconstitutional

from the also,-its-analogstalking-law dept

One of several problems with hastily-enacted laws meant to deal with advances in technology is that they often skip a step or several when being written. In many cases, the step skipped is an important one: the consideration of intent. By crafting laws that cater to subjective views of a situation -- whether it's meant to address cyberbullying or other forms of online harassment -- the laws blow past, sometimes intentionally, the requirement that there be malicious intent behind the targeted actions.

This has led to courts striking down newly-enacted laws as unconstitutional because they have skipped this step. Without this requirement in place, the laws curb free speech by enacting new limits on First Amendment expression based almost solely on subjective reading of the allegedly "criminal" content.

The Illinois Appeals Court is the latest to find a cyberstalking/harassment law invalid. The problem here is, again, the lack of a mens rea requirement. (h/t Orin Kerr)

The stalking case that triggered this review [PDF] deals with a former intern at a Christian radio station who apparently couldn't take "no" for an answer, or just genuinely had no idea how to obtain a definitive answer on his current job status. It all depends on who you ask. But as the law was written, the only person who needed to be asked was the complainant.

Defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of stalking and two counts of cyberstalking. In particular, the indictments collectively alleged that defendant: (1) called Sonya Blakey on the telephone; (2) sent her emails; (3) stood outside of her place of business; (4) entered her place of business; and (5) made multiple posts on his Facebook page threatening Blakey’s coworkers and expressing his desire to engage in sexual acts with Blakey. The indictments further alleged that defendant “knew or should have known” that his conduct “would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress” and “fear for her safety.”

The indictment makes the defendant [Walter Relerford] sound more than a bit dangerous. The actual events that triggered this prosecution, however, are not nearly as evil-sounding. Blakey testified that multiple emails were sent not just to her, but other employees at the station -- all of them inquiring about the possibility of working there again after being turned down for an open intern position. She also testified that the incident in which the defendant "stood outside her place of business" involved nothing more than him waving up at her from ground level -- at a complex where multiple businesses, including several restaurants, were located.

The defendant's unexpected visit to the business was just that. Blakey may have subjectively experienced shock or fear, but the defendant left peaceably when escorted from the building and made no movements or statements suggesting he posed any threat to Blakey.

The Facebook posts made by the defendant were a bit more disturbing, containing thinly-veiled threats related to Blakey and the station's refusal to give him a job. There were also comments of a sexual nature made. Also included were other things entirely unrelated to anything -- like a group of "Chinese people" talking about "killing everyone at the station" and the insistence that "the entire Michigan State football team from 1993" be immediately "buried" if he did not have "Sonya [Blakey's] vagina in his mouth" by the end of the week.

These posts were definitely more disturbing than anything Relerford had done prior. But they weren't tagged with Sonya Blakey's name (making them visible to her) and no attempt was made by Relerford to ensure Blakey saw them. Instead, a friend of Blakey's saw the posts and emailed them to her.

Blakey admitted during testimony that Relerford had never once threatened her directly. Instead, everything was based on how she felt about the interactions. And the way the law is crafted allows a single subjective viewpoint to steer prosecution… which is exactly what the court finds unconstitutional about the law.

The laws (both the regular stalking and cyberstalking version) had survived challenges before. But under the Supreme Court's Elonis decision, they no longer withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

As noted above, defendant was sentenced for violating subsection (a)(2) of the general stalking statute. That section criminalizes a wide range of conduct, including communicating to or about a person. But, like the statute at issue in Elonis, “communicating something is not what makes *** conduct ‘wrongful’ ” under subsection (a)(2). (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2011. Instead, an individual’s conduct is criminal under section (a)(2) if, and only if, the defendant “knows or should know” that it would cause “reasonable person” to “suffer *** emotional distress.” 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(2) (West 2012). Subsection (a)(2) contains no requirement that the individual actually intend to inflict emotional suffering on a person. Thus, as currently drafted, subsection (a)(2) bypasses “ ‘the conventional requirement for criminal conduct–awareness of some wrongdoing’ ” in favor of a reasonable person standard of criminality.

Which leads to this determination about the state's older stalking law…

Accordingly, we hold that subsection (a)(2) of the general stalking statute, of which defendant was convicted and sentenced, lacks a mens rea requirement and is therefore facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

As well as its cyber version:

Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the cyberstalking statute are virtually identical to subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the general stalking statute. The principal difference is that the cyberstalking statute specifies that the defendant’s course of conduct involved electronic communications. It necessarily follows then, that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the cyberstalking statute, which also lack a mens rea requirement, are facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment for the same reason that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the general stalking statute are unconstitutional.

The court doesn't instruct the legislature to fix the state's stalking laws, but it obviously can't leave the statutes the way they are and hope to prosecute anybody under them.

Filed Under: cyberstalking, harassment, illinois, malicious intent, mens rea, stalking

After All That, The Original 'Cyberstalking' Complaint That Created Petraeus Scandal Is Dropped

from the digging-around-for-nothing dept

What has been somewhat forgotten in the ensuing situation that resulted in General David Petraeus stepping down from his post at the top of the CIA, is that the whole thing started when his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell was accused of "cyberstalking" by another woman, Jill Kelley. That led to a chain of events, including having the FBI go through various email accounts, exposing the affair and some other soap opera-y stuff involving generals. And, in the end, the original cyberstalking charge, that kicked it all off, is being dropped. Of course, that only raises even more questions about why the FBI went snooping through everyone's emails in the first place.

It was always questionable for the FBI to pursue a cyberstalking investigation against Broadwell, who used an anonymous email account, “kelleypatrol,” to tell Florida-based military officers like Marine Gen. John Allen that socialite Kelley was bad news. One former federal prosecutor told Danger Room that it was “highly irregular” for the FBI to take up such cases.

While some insist that it's fine for the FBI to snoop through Petraeus' emails given his position, it seems like they should have had much more of a reason than "hey, someone's bothering someone else online."

Filed Under: cyberstalking, david petraeus, email, paula broadwell, privacy

NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That

from the i-find-this-offensive dept

We've been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the "cyberbullying" banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a "jerk" online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone's action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one's right to free speech.

In the past, lawmakers pushing these laws have tended to simply ignore the First Amendment issue, and focus on screaming "protect the children!" as loudly as possible (never mind the fact that kids seem much less concerned about "bullying" than all these adults seem to think). However, it appears that some state Senators in NY are trying a new line of attack: going directly after the First Amendment and suggesting that current interpretations are way too broad, and it's not really meant to protect any sort of free speech right. In fact, it sounds as though they're trying to redefine the right to free speech into a privilege that can be taken away. Seriously:

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Yes, that totally flips the First Amendment on its head. It is not a "more refined First Amendment." It's the anti-First Amendment. It suggests, by its very nature, that the government possesses the right to grant the "privilege" of free speech to citizens... and thus the right to revoke it. That's an astonishingly dangerous path, and one that should not be taken seriously. Of course, given their right to speak freely, state senators Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky have every right to put forth that argument -- but similarly, it allows others to point out their rather scary beliefs.

If you'd like to see the full report (pdf), I warn you that it is almost entirely written IN ALL CAPS (for no clear reason, there are a few chunks that revert to normal capitalization -- including a big chunk in the middle, that starts mid-section). I have no idea why so much of the paper is in ALL CAPS, but I'm kind of offended by it. Can we please remove their "privilege" to put out such things until they've learned to not maltreat capital letters?

The paper attempts to list out various examples of types of cyberstalking and cyberbullying -- some of which seem pretty ridiculous:

LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS;

"Improper"? Seem a little broad to you? Does that mean the next person who comments here about something off-topic is a cyberbully?

“FLAMING” (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);

Whoo boy. An awful lot of you in the comments better watch out...

“HAPPY SLAPPING” (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS);

Holy crap. 2005 wants its silly "crazy children" meme back. Yes, there were a few instances of this extremely brief "fad" that came and went in like a month half a decade ago. Then the next internet meme came along.

"TROLLING” (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);

Ooh, once again. Commenters beware.

EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP).

Seriously? If we don't let you into the club, it's now a form of cyberbullying? It makes you wonder what happened to these particular Senators when they were kids.

The paper also attacks "anonymity," again ignoring how anonymity can often be extremely helpful to kids who wish to discuss things and ask questions without revealing who they are.

As for where they're going with this? Well, you guessed it: they're planning to introduce new laws to deal with cyberbullying (even though NY already has such a law). The plan is to extend two existing areas of law: "stalking in the third degree" will now include cyberbullying, and "manslaughter in the second degree" will be expanded to "include the emerging problem of bullycide."

This is basically a "Lori Drew" law. And it's ridiculous. If I say something to someone and they then go commit suicide, should I be guilty of manslaughter? Do the folks behind this not realize that this doesn't help prevent suicides, but it encourages them in giving people who are upset by something someone said extra incentive to kill themselves to "get back" at the person who was mean to them.

The cyberstalking part is no less ridiculous. It's ridiculously broad. It does not require that the person accused of cyberstalking initiate the activity, it does not require intent to harm or frighten, and a single message can be a cause of action. Think about that for a second. Someone could send you a message, you could do a single reply with no ill will or bad intent... and be guilty of the crime of cyberstalking. Damn. Do the folks writing this bill not realize how widely this will be abused?

Hopefully no one is so offended in reading such a dangerous proposal that they go out and commit suicide. At least be comforted in knowing that it won't allow for the authors to be accused of manslaughter until after the bill passes.

Filed Under: cyberbulling, cyberstalking, david carlucci, david valesky, diane savino, first amendment, free speech, jeff klein, new york

Rhode Island Teen Facing 'Domestic Violence' Charges For 'Inappropriate' Facebook Message Sent To A Girl He Met

from the don't-be-a-jerk-online dept

We've seen a growing number of vague and worrisome laws passed over the past few years to try to outlaw being a jerk online. Earlier this year, we noted one such law in Rhode Island, which was technically dubbed an "anti-cyberstalking" law, though we worried about just how vague and open for abuse it was. Well, we've now got the first charges filed under the new law. Kashmir Hill points us to the news that a 15-year-old boy is facing "domestic violence" charges for some "inappropriate" messages he sent via Facebook to a 16-year-old girl he met.

Police say the 15-year-old Barrington boy met a 16-year-old girl while taking classes this summer and they started to talk through Facebook.

But police say the 16-year-old felt uncomfortable when the messages started getting inappropriate.

Police started the investigation in July and now they've charged the minor with cyber stalking, which is now punishable under the domestic violence prevention act.

There are a whole series of issues here. While the text of the messages hasn't been revealed, the fact that the judgment is based on the girl "feeling uncomfortable" leaves open a wide range of possible abuses. If I feel "uncomfortable" about comments on Techdirt, can I really have the police investigate and potentially send someone to jail because of it? Even the RI representative who wrote the law says that this use is "not what she envisioned." However, she then says it's okay because "the law might stop it from happening to someone else."

Really? Stop what exactly? A boy sending a message to a girl that makes her feel uncomfortable? That's called "most of high school" for some boys. And since there's no clear way to determine what is and what is not appropriate here, do we really want to be charging kids under things like domestic violence laws just because they go too far in a Facebook message? I'm not saying that the kid shouldn't be dealt with in some way if the messages really are "inappropriate," but can't they be dealt with in other ways? Block him on Facebook or have parents punish him. Involving the police and charges? Seems "inappropriate."

Filed Under: cyberstalking, domestic violence, rhode island

Renton Police Shopped Around Until They Found A Prosecutor Who Would Go After Anonymous Critic

from the shameful dept

On Friday we wrote about the Renton City police in Washington, who were somehow able to get a city prosecutor to issue a warrant to get information from Google about supposed "cyberstalking." Of course, the "cyberstalking" really just turned out to be some anonymous, mocking Xtranormal videos -- the kind people put up all the time. These were almost certainly done by someone inside the police force who was frustrated about some random day-to-day politics in the force. Going after them with felony charges is crazy. The chief of police isn't backing down, now that the case has generated a lot of attention, claiming ridiculously, "I would rather err on the side of investigating all complaints (and) alleged criminal misconduct rather than risk failing to investigate a crime that's been reported."

But that's ridiculous. You can investigate the misconduct pretty easily, by watching the videos, and recognizing that they're not cyberstalking. And that's it.

That's not at all what the Renton Police did. Instead, it's now come out, they tried back in May to get a similar warrant from the King County Prosecutor's Office... and it was rejected. The police then asked another officer to make the case for the city prosecutor, who did issue the warrant. Of course, the real person who should be scrutinized here is the city prosecutor who clearly never should have issued such a warrant. KIRO 7, the local TV news station that broke this story and continues to be the best source of information on it, asked the police chief, who goes by the unfortunate name Kevin Milosevich, about this obvious prosecutor "shopping," and he said that reporters were "overreacting."

Of course, if anything, it seems they're underreacting. Shopping for prosecutors in a blatant attempt to unveil the identity of a critic for no reason other than that he's a critic seems like a massive abuse of power. If Milosevich had any idea how this was being viewed by most legal critics, his response would have been to say they were asking prosecutors to drop the case.

Filed Under: cyberstalking, parody, police, prosecutors, renton

Police, City Use Ridiculous 'Cyberstalking' Claim To Try To Identify & Jail Creator Of Mocking Videos

from the police-state? dept

An anonymous reader points us to the absolutely crazy goings on in Renton, Washington, where the police and city prosecutor are seeking jailtime for an anonymous person (or people) who created some Xtranormal videos mocking the Renton police force. Most of the news reports on this story keep calling whoever did this a "cartoonist," but all they really did was use Xtranormal -- a popular tool that wev'e used ourselves -- to create simple animated videos by typing in a script. You can see one of the videos embedded below (assuming it stays up): Given standard Xtranormal fare, this may be the most boring such video I've seen. But, clearly, it's been created by someone who is an insider, probably on the police force, who is venting about certain administrative decisions and administrators. The police and the city prosecutor then cooked up a search warrant (embedded below) to try to identify the person behind the videos, who variously goes by the name MrFuddlesticks, whothehellispenny or tellinthetruth. That search warrant was obtained by a local news channel, KIROTV, who originally broke this story. It spells out various evidence as to why the videos are clearly about people and incidents involving the Renton police force.

And then, it tries to claim that the whole thing is "cyberstalking." Why? Because apparently some of the people the video is mocking say they're embarrassed about the videos. That seems to be the extent of the cyberstalking. As you read the filing, though, the details of the warrant appear to suggest that many of the references in the videos refer to actual events.

It's extremely difficult to see how anything here raises to the level of cyberstalking. KIROTV asked lawyer Venkat Balasubramani (whose blog posts we regularly link to here) his opinion on the search warrrant, and he noted that:

“The cyberstalking angle doesn't pass the laugh test," Balasubramani told KIRO-TV. "It's a serious stretch and I'd be surprised if somebody looked at it and realistically thought these acts actually fit the statute and we could make somebody criminally liable."

When we asked about the more likely scenario, Balasubramani said, "I think they were trying to get at the speaker and they looked around for a statute that shoehorned their conduct into and sent that to Google and said ‘turn over the information.”

Historically, Google and You-Tube are far more likely to cough up an anonymous animator's real name when there's a criminal case, as opposed to just an internal affairs investigation into some personnel issues.

In fact, from the warrant, it looks like Google just handed over the info upon receipt of the subpoena, without questioning it at all. The city was then trying to get more info from Google about the gmail address that "mrfuddlesticks" was using, in an effort to identify the person.

This seems like a pretty broad overreach. The prosecutor appears to be taking a exceptionally broad interpretation of the cyberstalking law, saying that anything done "with intent to harass... torment, or embarass" is criminal. As Eugene Volokh has pointed out, if the law really allows for such an interpretation, then the law is "clearly unconstitutionally overbroad." Furthermore he notes:

Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge on an earlier warrant was James Cayce, but I don’t know what the affidavit said there, and I don’t know the name of the judge who apparently issued the warrant based on the affidavit included with the KIRO story.) A search warrant can only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that it will uncover evidence of a crime; since the material described in the affidavit can’t be made criminal under the cited statute, given the First Amendment, the warrant ought not have been issued. The government is not permitted to use its coercive power to identify the author of this constitutionally protected video.

This whole thing raises tremendous abuse of power and First Amendment questions. It seems that their entire intent is to try to identify someone who is mocking them publicly by abusing certain laws and procedures to reveal that anonymous parodist.

Filed Under: cyberstalking, parody, police, renton