CARWASH: Anonymous Cowards now made Illegal by PRESIDENT BUSH!

[rossshow]

The stalking harrassing anonymous ID's are now against the law!


On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a must-pass DoJ appropriations bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:) which contained a little gotcha for the internet (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html).

For decades, making anonymous abusive phone calls has been a federal crime, good for up to two years behind bars -- and the term "abusive" has included threats, harassment, and the much weaker "intent to annoy."

Now, that telecommunications law has been extended to include the Internet, so when you post an anonymous troll to wind up your least-favorite blogger, you may break the law.

This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts.

A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.


(

Read More... (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/01/09/1520222.shtml?tid=153)



Uh oh! They better ask Jayne about this! She's the resident legal expert, maybe she can help!

[rossshow]

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fne ws%2Freleases%2F2006%2F01%2F20060105-3.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd109%3Ah.r.03402%3A&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex). Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2F&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex). "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."



Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.law.cornell.edu%2F uscode%2Fhtml%2Fuscode47%2Fusc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fquery%2Fz%3Fc109%3AH.R.3402%3A&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) that the House approved (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fclerk.house.gov%2Fevs%2 F2005%2Froll501.xml&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.suck.com%2F&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex). A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein (http://news.com.com/Annoy.com+Webmaster+says+war+art+censored/2100-1028_3-5399766.html?tag=nl), a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fannoy.com%2F&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fannoy.com%2Fpostcards%2 F&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled (http://news.com.com/Annoy.com+free+to+bother+Netizens/2100-1023_3-215949.html?tag=nl) the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstraylight.law.cornell. edu%2Fsupct%2Fhtml%2F93-986.ZC1.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fpr esident%2Fgwbbio.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex)), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law (http://news.com.com/Abortion+provision+of+CDA+under+attack/2100-1023_3-206781.html?tag=nl) punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed (http://news.com.com/Suit+vs.+CDA+clause+dismissed/2100-1023_3-278315.html?tag=nl) the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fne ws%2Freleases%2F2001%2F02%2F20010228.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex). Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

[rossshow]

"it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess."

No more anonymous cowards allowed on the net!

[10x]

oh boy can you see the cost to the goverment to investigate the complaints?

got to change the sig lines to include real names, LOL







ROY

[trouble1957]

Testing compliant sig line

[Cyber Diva]

The stalking harrassing anonymous ID's are now against the law! Uh oh! They better ask Jayne about this! She's the resident legal expert, maybe she can help! :1chirol_c

Wonder if they will still be able to use relay services to stalk their victims? LOL

[Cyber Diva]

Oh my! What's the carwash puzzlegoddess to do?

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=puzzlegoddess+stalker&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=chopsbuster+stalker&btnG=Search

By the way, does anyone know what eBay's going to do about their posting ID phenomena? ROTFLOL! :busmoon:

[paleryder]

"Mobak" is out of a job!




:1chirol_r

[rossshow]

does anyone know what eBay's going to do about their posting ID phenomena?



Hahahaha! Good question for the Town Square:

Bashing by POSTING ID's now a federal CRIME. (http://forums.ebay.com/db1/thread.jspa?threadID=1000186709&tstart=0&mod=1136838445057)

[Powerhouse]

I'll beat Beth to the punch - Illegal regulation/unenforcable. Too broad and vague.

Next crisis.

[Kravitz]

Hmmm, let me try this again

Ross, you just made my day **grin** ..... the title is so appropriate too!

[The Kings Noyse]

This is very good news, and it has been a long time coming. I think this marks the beginning of the end for all varieties of internet slanderers, particularly the self-styled "netcops," who long ago outlived what small and brief uses they once may have served. Just as dream and fantasy eventually must yield to the sunlit world of productive work, it's time for these loafing parasites to put down their destructive little toys, to come out of the shadows, and ultimately to find something meaningful to do with what remains of their wasted, unprincipled lives. There is no alternative because removing anonymity practically guarantees just retribution for their nefarious interventions, and retaliation, as we know, is precisely what cyberstalking netcops fear most and can afford least.

Prior to the new Amendment, Title 18 §2261A read as follows:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002261---A000-.html
§ 2261A. Interstate stalking

Release date: 2005-08-03

Whoever—
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(2) with the intent—
(A) to kill or injure a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—
(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person,
uses the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii),
shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b).
SEC. 509 of the new bill recently signed into law, PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING, amends §2261A as follows:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3402
SEC. 509. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is *amended--
(1) in paragaph (1)--
(A) by inserting after ' "intimidate'' the following: ``, or places under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``or serious bodily injury to,'' the following: ``or causes substantial emotional harm to,'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``to kill or injure'' and inserting ``to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or places under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or to cause substantial emtional harm to,''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), in the matter following clause (iii) of subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting after ``uses the mail'' the following: ``, any interactive computer service,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``course of conduct that'' the following: ``causes substantial emotional harm to that person or''.
Way to go, Congress! And kudos to President Bush also for having the determination to Nuke-All-Cyberstalkers.

Oh, and notice that the term 'annoy' appears nowhere in the legislation, contrary to the hysterical spin of the the cnet political correspondent.

[rossshow]

From the Town Square Thread:


Well, it'll be lonely here without you all but I'll manage somehow.

[rossshow]

http://forums.ebay.com/db1/thread.jspa?threadID=1000186709&start=41

The first carwasher chimes in, one that actually has the ability to post on ebay's boards. That Whale Spirit person posts:

Ross is the owner of an infamous bash board that he likes to pretend isn't a bash board.

Ross is blind to his own transgressions.

I hope that didn't annoy you, Ross.

If it did, I'm in BIG trouble. http://forums.ebay.com/db1/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

[rossshow]

http://forums.ebay.com/db1/thread.jspa?threadID=1000186709&start=56

Whale, the anonymous coward who's bashing days are soon to be finshed by order of FEDERAL LAW, gets a visit from one of her stalking victims.

thieving_magpie posts:

since you are aware of my real name whale.......(and have posted it all over the net along with other of my particulars and profane and vulgar allegations), let's examine how the carwash (your haunt of late) engages in outright harassment of posters that makes the Rossshow look like girlscout camp.........shall we?

[la gazza ladra]

I notice she made another thread on the wreck with my ID in it..........


I say: let people read it.

[rossshow]

Several vendetta driven anonymous carwash trolls have arrived to try and derail the thread on the Ebay Town Square. It's up to 131 posts so far. Should be a good one.

Glad I started it.

Now, let's sit back and watch the trolls cry out as they know their days are numbred.

[rossshow]

LOL! FOD is crying, and threatening a last fling using new ID's made just for this issue!

Fine, take your best shot, FOD. I don't fear the likes of you, son.

[rossshow]

LOL! One thing, FOR SURE, one particular board owner is banned from posting on all ebay boards. So he won't be joining us.

[rossshow]

Discussion at another board I track:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1768775

[rossshow]

Discussion is burning up the blogosphere:

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail (http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-6022491.html)

MORE discussion:

TAPPED (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008825), Vodkapundit (http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008435.php), IntoxiNation-News … (http://intoxination.blogspot.com/2006/01/new-anti-trolling-law.html), The Jawa Report v3.0 Beta (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/150474.php), Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/9/125339/9804), Concurring Opinions (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/annoy_someone_o.html), Ace of Spades HQ (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/150487.php), Shakespeare's Sister (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/01/im-going-to-jailand-youre-all-coming.html), Blinq (http://blogs.philly.com/blinq/2006/01/annoy_me_at_you.html), Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/01/09/youre-all-going-down/), TalkLeft (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013643.html), SayUncle (http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/01/09/the_end_of_blogs/), The Poor Man Institute (http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/01/10/but-we-intend-to-entertain/), Instapundit.com (http://instapundit.com/archives/027935.php), Running Scared (http://www.runningscared.org/posts/1136823959.shtml), SpeakSpeak News (http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/2006/01/09/bush-signs-law-criminalizing-annoying-comments-on-the-internet/), Majikthise (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/01/another_assault.html), SIVACRACY.NET (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002638.html), Why Are We Back In Iraq? (http://whyareweback.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-about-jeff.html), Loaded Mouth (http://loadedmouth.com/node/2695), PhotoDude.com (http://photodude.com/links/2907/create-an-e-annoyance-go-to-jail), rubber hose (http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2006/01/cya-post.html) and No Capital (http://nocapital.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_nocapital_archive.html#1136838637857715 33)

[rossshow]

And meanwhile, in a thread full of anonymous cowads, Chops says he APPROVES of this law!


I actually kinda like this new legislation in theory. I mean, think about it: it'll muzzle Cartboy and Baltzer in an instant


And FOD, and Whale, and Blue Oval Lady, and, and, and, and, and, and.

[rossshow]

This should be the good part now. So soon? I didn't expect it so soon.

[rossshow]

Chops proclaims to his board full of anonymous cowards:


It's actually good news for TCWL and its members


How stupid is he? There's maybe two, maybe three tops, real ID's on that board. The rest are in violation of federal law.

[rossshow]

FOD begins slamming Chops:



God forbid that great Americans once understood the benefit of deriding tyranny through anonymous publications.

Chops shouldn't have said this law was a good thing. Especially on a board FULL of anonymous cowards!

[rossshow]

FOD is going OFF on Chops:

And now you bow yourself before "Federal Law"

[Poison]

Ross, you might actually want to read and consider the interpretation of the bill before you hurt yourself trying to keep up with your own posts.

Those "letters" in the bill - they are grouped together to form words. The grouping of those words together form sentences that are separated by periods - they generally communicate a complete thought. You are way in over your head ....

[rossshow]

LOL! Just reporting the facts, Egret. Haven't you regestered at Car Wash? May I suggest you try it out? It's a safe friendly board full of anonymous cowards like you.


Bye.

[agentorange]

There's maybe two, maybe three tops, real ID's on that board.
He's delusional. "Friskey Licker", a harassment ID for well known poster "Whiskey Quicker", and "la gaza puka", a harassment ID for well known poster "la gaza ladra", and "Cucumber Blues" a harassment ID for well known poster "Blues Boulevard" are core members of the carwash criminal stalking/harassment/libel board. The posting of private contact information abounds there--the full names of at least a half a dozen posters are splattered in nearly every single thread. Every single thread started there that initially has no intent to bash or harass someone immediately turns into a harassment thread within 3 posts. Then there's the libel and defamation of character, the admissions of interference into personal lives, etc. There's already laws protecting victims from that sort of criminal misconduct. We know that none of them has ever ceased their criminal behavior willingly--they've been repeatedly warned by eBay staff until they get thrown off for good. They were repeatedly warned by ezboard before being globally banned. They were warned by proboards before they continued the behavior and had their board shut down. They were warned by the divas, they challenged the rules, and they were once again shut down. Godaddy has it's rules, they are the same as any other responsible, legitimate hosting site, and those rules are violated left and right, with giddy glee. No, anti-social sociopaths do not have the ability to regulate themselves or their behavior. They must be warned of the rules, laws, and procedures they are violating, as part of due course, even though it never does any good, and then they get shut down, time and time again. This law will not affect the behavior of the members of the cardump one bit--not unless it is pursued. Even then, the others will continue on their criminal course until every last one of them is brought to justice. But like I said, this annoyance law doesn't really apply to them--they are breaking laws that already exist, and they mistakenly believe they do so with impunity.

[Poison]

Ross, facts are as far away from your posts on this topic as the sun is from the earth. No, I haven't joined the car wash but thanks for asking. Have you been sitting in on their chats again, Ross? Sure, you can suggest I try it out if you like. I really can't stop you from suggesting anything and I am not sure why you think you need my permission anyway. Perhaps you're just insecure. No, they really are nothing like me at all but some of them do have your number, don't they?

[rossshow]

No, Egret.

[agentorange]

The one place where Ross is wrong is that the law didn't outlaw anonymous posting IDs. Supposedly, just bad behavior conducted with anonymous IDs. However, I didn't read "annoy" in the letter of the law and everyone keeps quoting that word. Where is "annoy" found?

[Poison]

No, anti-social sociopaths do not have the ability to regulate themselves or their behavior.


“We still have judgment here; that we but teach Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return to plague the inventor.”

William Shakespeare

[rossshow]

Not that I care, but, to further pull your strings like the puppetmaster that I am, what post of mine did you think was far from the facts of the matter?


Certainly not this one:

LOL! One thing, FOR SURE, one particular board owner is banned from posting on all ebay boards. So he won't be joining us.
Dance, Egret, I'm playing a circus styled tune for you.

[rossshow]

Where is "annoy" found? Several reporters used that term. I suppose it stems back to the original cnet article.

[agentorange]

Annoy has two meanings in the dictionary, and I am guessing it's the latter one that is the focus of this law:


To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.
To harass or disturb by repeated attacks.

[rossshow]

Assume I've already done everything you told me not to do, FOD. Bring your worst. Are you gonna bark all day little doggy? Or do you bite?

I'm getting bored reading the empty threats from an empty shell of a wanna be anonymous coward harrassing stalking idiot.

My eyes were falling shut just posting to you, FOD.

[agentorange]

The law didn't use the word annoy, the law used the words "harass by repeated acts", it was the reporters who took that to be the definition of the word "annoy", and they used "annoy" in their articles. Now, most of us think of annoy as being nothing more than a slight desturbance, so now people might be over-reacting.

[rossshow]

This is great entertainment!

To see anonymous cowards posting in support of the law in order to take a shot at some other anonymous cowards that they don't like!

Thanks, Mr. President for this little piece of entertainment. It's gonna go on for DAYS!

[Poison]

Not that I care, but, to further pull your strings like the puppetmaster that I am, what post of mine did you think was far from the facts of the matter?

Well, Ross, if you don't care then why ask? You are, after all the self-proclaimed puppet master, are you not?

Dance, Egret, I'm playing a circus styled tune for you.

Indeed you are, Ross! Let me take this opportunity to thank you for such fine entertainment in your one act, one ring show ... featuring you. A troupe of trained monkeys could not perform better.

[10x]

Hmm politicals dont what folks they can easly trace making fun of them.

Any report all of ebays boards yet as anoying? :1JerryJer

[RunFaYaLife]

oh lookie FOD is making "threats" to r0ss

ROTFL

[rossshow]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008825




On balance, this federal law is a mitzvah and thank God it has been passed, I say. I have had the not uncommon journalistic experience of dealing with someone who decided to come after me in a most unpleasant manner, both online and by e-mail, under cover of what I believe to be false names. Since I became aware of his behavior, more than a year ago, this individual has been convicted of felony stalking in another case and also had a major judgment decided against him in a civil suit filed by that other victim. Indeed, there were so many other individuals, in such disparate localities, who believed themselves to be victims of this man's attentions that, for a time, there was some discussion with prosecutors about making a federal case out of the situation.

It would be a terrible outcome for the men and women who need this law if it were eventually overturned because it was too broadly worded and/or corporations decided to try to use it against critical online writers. But I believe there is little risk of this. The prevalence of the "annoy" section in existing harassment and anti-cyberstalking laws is testament to the fact that lower courts have held that it is not an unconstitutionally vague standard, because such statues have "defined the offense with particularized standards to limit the scope of the offense" or "since the statute requires specific intent." The federal statute requires intent, which would seem to obviate this concern (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news), expressed in the CNet News story that got the ball rolling: "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."Victimized men and women need a federal law to defend themselves against on-line stalkers who have turned their lives upside down, and I would hope that all those bloggers who intend, through their various online coalitions, to advocate for a change in this law's language remember the importance of providing them with justice.

[10x]

"dont what folks they can easly trace making fun of them."


Hmm Leave out dont in that one. ROTFLOL, hey should I report my self for causing me emotional harm???? :hazmat:

[la gazza ladra]

too bad they cut the 'illiterate poster embargo' from the bill, huh?



such is much..........

[agentorange]

What if someone has multiple personaly disorder and with one personality he or she harasses the other personality with anonymous sock puppets. Upon conclusion of the investigation, it is found that the victim was also the perpetrator... Could one personality file charges against the other personality?

[10x]

LOL good one Base.
















Roy

[10x]

Ahh Got my new sig. ROTFLMAO. :sm1167:

[Cyber Diva]

What if someone has multiple personality disorder and with one personality he or she harasses the other personality with anonymous sock puppets. Upon conclusion of the investigation, it is found that the victim was also the perpetrator...

This all began in March of 2003, :1eek2:
New Post About my Socks

All of my sockpuppets were created in a spirit of fun, with no intent to deceive anybody, in the early days of The Car Wash, when it was just an off-shoot of The Coven - an MBA board.... TCW had only a handful of members and no purpose beyond serving as a way-station on the way in and out of TRB, which all of us read at that time. My jocular notion was that Ross' tracker would detect a group of lurkers arriving from a strange new place, but when Ross followed us back there he would find an empty board. It was just an amusing idea, and I had no plan to put The Car Wash to any use beyond that. Then, one of the members offered to play around with some HTML and design a "look" for the board; so I made him an admin. Someone else wanted to add emoticons, so she too became an admin and wrote the "board rules" which survive to this day. Pretty soon, we had what looked like a message board, except that no-one was posting there except in the private forum (Intimate Chatter)..... The "carwash" ID's - including my infamous sockpuppets - were born..... My own sockpuppets developed "personalities" which some found entertaining, and this encouraged the performer in me to persevere with them.

This all began in March of 2003. Toss Me A Dwarf was I, for I'd made no attempt to conceal the fact - Early on, the Carwash admins declared that sockpuppets used only for bashing were not allowed, and I've scrupulously applied that rule to all - established members and new members alike. .... [LOL]

So, what exactly is the beef regarding my sockpuppets... That I lied? :1bonk1:

I posted.. sometimes as backseat philosopher so that I could moderate with a different ID...... It's a drag sometimes to be the focus of so much noisy hostility, and my socks provided a means to escape from that occasionally. :1cryhard:

Finally, I'd just like to add that another ID (besides Stormy Summer) which has been attributed to me is not mine, nor have I ever posted with it. That ID is polonam - it belonged to Egret and is globally banned. ("Polonam" used to be my buying ID on eBay.) Another ID, audrevan, is actually the first EZ account I ever used - on a private, anti-fraud board, of which Base was also a member for a while - and I continue to use it at The Chopping Block, which is a private board where I and a small group of associates maintain a database of fraud reports and investigations.... I probably won't return to the XX, since I prefer to concentrate on my anti-fraud activity and building a new community at The Car Wash.
:rolleyes:

[agentorange]

LOL, yes he did post to himself with no less than 13 registered ezboard accounts, and he even argued with himself, but to my knowledge he never reported any of them for harassment! Did he? Oh my!

[blissmeister]

chopsbuster: It's a drag sometimes to be the focus of so much noisy hostility...

The sole purpose behind his existance.

[rossshow]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060110-5947.html


The 'net is alive with buzz about a new bill signed into law by President Bush that could see certain forms of harassment online turned into criminal behaviors. The bill, dubbed the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3402), addresses a number of major issues, but online forms of harassment are addressed in a tiny section (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c1092wDJg7:e91030:) of the bill that seeks to address "cyberstalking."

So far as I can tell, the story originated with this report at News.com (http://news.com.com/2010-1028-6022491.html?tag=orbHQ) by Declan McCullagh, who commonly covers the intersecting points of technology and law and/or politics. The story opens with some remarkable claims:

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

As you would expect, eyebrows across the country were raised at the prospect of good old fashioned Internet trolling and flaming becoming criminal (at least in the US), with a maximum penalty being two years in jail. Chances are, if you've read about this new law, you've read about how it criminalizes harassment online done under a false or anonymous identity. You've probably also read that this will make blogging, forum posting, and using USENET (among other things) far more dangerous because it would now be "illegal to annoy" someone, and whatnot.

The problem is, I believe that McCullagh has rushed to judgment somewhat, which is something I'm reticent to say because I rarely have qualms with his work. But before we get into that, let's look at the law in question, and address some of the words and their meaning. First, the changes (I've put new additions in bold):

(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term "telecommunications device" in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

Note this very important point: subparagraph (B) still excludes "interactive computer service" from the definition of "telecommunications device." But what is happening to subparagraph (C) subsection (a)(1)? First, let's have a look at that subsection, which occurs under "Prohibited acts generally." (Note that the bolded subparagraph (C) above is not the same as subparagraph (C) subsection (a)(1), which I am about to quote.)

(C) [Whoever] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

As a quick note, it should be pointed out that "annoy" here has a much more limited meaning here than mere everyday annoyance. Rather than cite scores of precedent, we need to only look at how the law has played out before the manner of communication was addressed with this new bill. Suffice it to say that previous to this bill, it was already illegal "to annoy" in this manner (namely, with intent) using a telephone, and yet we all know that the black helicopters won't come swooping in because of merely annoying phone calls, be they commercial in nature, pranks, or from your in-laws (if your in-laws annoy you, of course). The bar is high, as they say, and there has to be intent to cause someone else emotional stress. (Of course, that won't stop lawsuit-happy people from trying, but what does?)

Building on that, we need to put this law into context, and I think that is where things become more clear. Anonymous speech per se is protected by the First Amendment (see McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10296) for a recent SCOTUS-level decision), but anonymous speech has also been subjected to legal scrutiny, such that Internet Service Providers and the like have been pressed to reveal the identities of anonymous individuals who have been accused of defamation and other such "speech crimes." This is to say that, even prior to this law, it was possible for a party to serve discovery on an ISP or a forum provider to turn over whatever information they had on a poster for the purposes of pursuing claims.

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

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

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

[Cyber Diva]

"but anonymous speech has also been subjected to legal scrutiny, such that Internet Service Providers and the like have been pressed to reveal the identities of anonymous individuals who have been accused of defamation and other such "speech crimes." This is to say that, even prior to this law, it was possible for a party to serve discovery on an ISP or a forum provider to turn over whatever information they had on a poster for the purposes of pursuing claims. "

But what protections are there when anonymous individuals turn to threatening ISPs so they won't turn over whatever information they had on a particular poster for the purposes of pursuing claims?

www.Devala.com

:sm1194:

[Heartland]

If you have a legitimate legal claim, then get a legitimate court order, Divass. :stfu:

YOU don't have the right to any confidential info without one, regardless of your penchant for sticking your nose everywhere but into your own disgusting and immoral behavior.

[Cyber Diva]

Sandy, i doubt you know what you're talking about. However, is there a reason you feel it's necessary to comment and get involved in such an offensive manner?

[Heartland]

I responded to your moronic question, Divass. If you don't like my response, then try to refrain from asking stupid questions that you already know the answer to, or should. :stfu:

You "doubt" I know what I'm talking about? :1chirol_r Tell us another good one, Divass!

Read anyone else's private messages lately? Scumbag.

[rossshow]

This question is better directed to Chopsbuster, Sandy.

Read anyone else's private messages lately? Scumbag.

I'm sure Chopsbuster has. And is doing so daily.

[Heartland]

Pointing at another scumbag doesn't change the fact that the Divass are scumbags, as well.

One has taken complete and desperate leave of his senses; the others never had possession of theirs.

They deserve each other.

[rossshow]

They deserve each other.

BE that as it may, they don't have each other.

Chops has FOD and Nuke, and a Drunken Butterfly, plus a few other nastys.

We have the Divas, and several other ex-associates of Chops (yourself included amongst them).

[blissmeister]

Hey Ross. I'm curious. Have you ever been an associate of (or associated with) chops... or have you just always had clean hands? ;)

[rossshow]

Always clean hands.

Chops was never an associate, or even a "friendly".

Same with you and your associates. You and your's have been tolerated, despite many envelope pushing antics.

[rossshow]

It was ME who brought the "Rumjungle vs Carwash / Trust and Safety Wars" into my circle of associates.

[blissmeister]

*trying to beat roy to the question*


Let me see those palms~!:1eek2:

[Heartland]

We??? You can claim them if you like. I don't think you'll have much company in that respect.

Would you rather they post here with no responses to their posts, as has been the case for the last several weeks? I would hope that you're not attempting to silence any of us who might have an opinion regarding their loaded questions which link back to their own lowly behavior.

Yes, I'm an ex-associate of Chops. I get your meaning, loud and clear. However, I have not dishonestly copied three-year-old posts and tried to pass them off as current in order to prove god-knows-what. Nor have I absconded with any board's archives and published them. Nor have I read anyone's private pm's without their knowledge and approval. Nor have I passed myself off as a legitimate business so that I could gain the power to do all of those things. Nor did I attempt to get access to anyone's personal and confidential information. All I did was post on a board, and then I left.

So if you still want to group ME with the Divass, just say the word. I don't see the link, myself. The Divass were not associated with Chops when I was, but since he's taken leave of his senses, he is associating or has associated with a goodly number of lowlives.

[rossshow]

Not at all, Heartland.

I don't play that Car Wash Game "Let's not disagree in public" bullshit.

I wholeheartedly encourage you to totally savage whomever you'd like to.

How do I consider you? The community, and the smaller group that I consider to be my associates, seem to have accepted you. So that is far more important than my personal opinion.

But, since I don't believe in running my board like Chops, with all open dissent shut down, and since you asked:

So if you still want to group ME with the Divass, just say the word. I don't see the link, myself. The Divass were not associated with Chops when I was, but since he's taken leave of his senses, he is associating or has associated with a goodly number of lowlives.

In the broadest of ways, broad brush in hand, I say: Yes. I categorize you both as disgruntled ex-associates of Chopsbuster's.

I don't "claim" either of you. For that matter: Any of you, from either camp.

All are welcome, The Ross Show is an Open Board

[Heartland]

LOL Ross, I know you don't consider my posts in this thread to be "totally savaging" (so far) but really ... how could I feel any other way about someone who has intentionally lied about me for years? They get exactly what they deserve from me, which is complete and utter loathing.

Apparently Diva is used to calling up associates of board members to stir up trouble and to milk those associates for any info she can get.

Did she not telephone Wasabanker's lawyer after Wasa's death and attempted to extract info regarding her Last Will, and also attempt to raise doubts about that will, with the sole purpose of causing legal trouble for someone on the boards whom she doesn't like? Yes, she did. She and Wasa were not even friends, nor were they at all friendly with each other -- quite the opposite, in fact.

Did she not also do the same to another member of this board, contacting his attorney and attempting to involve herself in his private legal matters that had absolutely nothing to do with her? Yes, she did.

From her question today, it's quite obvious that she attempted to do the same with someone's ISP and hit a brick wall. She apparently believes she is entitled to whatever info she desires just because she wants it. My response to her question was valid, and so was my attitude towards her.

[rossshow]

Meanwhile, since I slapped Egret into next week, Larry FOD has backed off his threat to join in the fun on the Ebay Town Square Thread.

Good idea, FOD. I see the best shot you have is an empty chamber.

[Poison]

Meanwhile, since I slapped Egret into next week

Really!? Where I must have missed it! Ross, you little :1liar3: ...

[tekobari]

There's a man who wrote me an email asking for a photo of me. Now, I have written on a few VERY strange boards in my day, out of curiousity and then only briefly, but I'm on a long hair board, too. As we know, there are men who are--shall we say "enthralled"?--by women with long hair. I suspect that's why he wrote to me.

But how did he get my email address? And how annoying is he? And since he signs his first name (if it IS his first name, of course), is he anonymous?

No, "R." I'm not sending you a photo. Imagine me any way you like. It's better that way.

It isn't you, BASE, is it? What do you want my hair to look like? And how long is your hair? Since you had dusa's baby, will you have mine? What will it look like? Am I annoying you yet?

[TurtleTrax]

It was ME who brought the "Rumjungle vs Carwash / Trust and Safety Wars" into my circle of associates.Yes, it was. And I suspect there are more than a few who would like to slap you into next week for it. :1angelica

:1evil2:

[Powerhouse]

Yes, it was. And I suspect there are more than a few who would like to slap you into next week for it. :1angelica

:1evil2:


Here, let ME do it. :sm1164:


:1evil2:

[la gazza ladra]

the "clean hands" reference I assume is a lame attempt to try to put over contributory negligence as an affirmative defense to what amounts to years of trolling and net stalking and intimidation.........


but complaining/discussing about net stalking and trolling is not net stalking or trolling...it comes after.........it is a reaction. figuring out who the trolls really are is not stalking or trolling either, it is also a reaction........cause and effect.......

the trolls/stalkers can't seem to verbalize what their problem was in the first place.....so they have to lie and edit to get their 'agenda' across......


my hands are clean.

[agentorange]

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm

Profile of a Sociopath
Glibness/Superficial Charm
Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.



Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality



Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and able to pass lie detector tests.



Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.



Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion, it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.



Incapacity for Love
While they talk about "God's love" they are unable to give or receive it. Since they do not believe in the genuineness of their followers' love, they are very harsh in testing it from their devotees and expect them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.



Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge, yet testing the beliefs of their followers with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.



Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the follower cannot believe their leader would callously hurt them, they rationalize the behavior as necessary for their (or the group's) own "good" and deny the abuse. When devotees become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "spiritual rape" to them.



Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. The followers only see them as near perfect.



Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.



Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their followers or others outside their group. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the followers.



Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Totalist leaders frequently practice promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their followers, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.



Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future. Many groups claim as their goal world-domination or other utopian promises. Great contrast between the leader's opulent lifestyle and the followers' impoverishment. Support by gifts and donations from the followers who are pressured to give through fear and guilt. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.



Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image and that of the group as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group and a new twist on the scam.

[rossshow]

Hmmm. Egret's still posting here?

Guess FOD's a liar. FOD said I banned him after slapping him.

Egret, go on over. Your pals at Car Wash miss you.

A liar, shooting blanks. That's FOD. He brought it on, and was found to be weak and wanting.

[rossshow]

Yes, it was. And I suspect there are more than a few who would like to slap you into next week for it. LOL! I'm sure.

[rossshow]

FOD still talk talk talking!

click. fizzle!

Shootin' blanks, FOD?
He brought it, and it just was weak weak weak.

[agentorange]

This is an amazing website dedicated to documenting one man's stalker. It is almost identical to the experiences many of us have had with certain members of the cardump:



http://www.paperdragonstudios.com/noel/index2.html

[Poison]

Ross, I am sure that the only thing you have slapped in the last few days is your meat.

[RunFaYaLife]

Yet all that dancing and spinning on a string (damage control) they are attempting at the car wash really is hilarious.....no one is buying it.

I could make a whole web site with the things I have on what they have all done over the years....

[la gazza ladra]

Hey FOD!!! ole buddy!!!!


seeing that the only real discourse we have ever had was pleasant and concerned marble repair and sporting art, it surprises me that I would need 'discarding'........but if you feel that strongly that skanky and the rest of the crew are more worthy of your attentions, so be it..........

I know how hard it is to fit in and all.........ya gotta bump the threads for your new pals.........


oh well......... :1cryhard:

[RunFaYaLife]

yer cracking me up La!



FOD seems to have short term memory loss as far as I am concerned and where I happened to be one night...when he got his ass handed to him on a plate with all the unblievable truths of his "dirty deeds". :1kiss1:
*snicker*