But I will take a moment to answer your question: no, it doesn’t make the evidence they collect inadmissible in any way. They’re not state actors and so they’re not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on illegal searches and seizures. The federal government could, under the theory espoused in the CFAA, prosecute Perverted Justice members for the violation of the ToS. However, it’s all moot; no AUSA is going to choose to prosecute Perverted Justice instead of the pedophiles that answer the solicitation, and Craigslist isn’t going to ask the AUSA to do so anyway because their interests are better served by getting threatening members of society like those off of their site.

How do I feel about it? Well, it doesn’t much quell my concern about prosecutions for any violations of the Terms of Service of any website. Still, the way that this verdict is being soundly ridiculed throughout the web and on local media (for example, see here: http://volokh.com/posts/1227896387.shtml — I guess I won’t be able to read his blog anymore because I’m interning for the P.D.’s Office!), I have a feeling that, at the very least, the sentence isn’t going to be all that heavy. The important thing is that, much as many news outlets predicted, Drew is NOT being linked to Meier’s suicide in a court of law.

But as someone who frequently links to YouTube videos of paleo (and sometimes more current) musical performances on my personal blog (I do it every Sunday), I had no idea that I was required to do this.

Using the YouTube embedding tool seems to do it for you, so I’m not in violation. (I am, quite frankly, too lazy or technologically challenged to do anything but use their tool.)

But what if I didn’t use it. I posted Bauhaus’ “Bela Lugosi’s Dead” for Halloween. A rather creepy song; famous for, among other things, being used as the intro for SNL’s “Goth Talk” skit. What if it prompted some Goth kids (do they exist anymore?) to do whatever bad thing Goth kids supposedly do (or did)?

No one would charge me? Probably not, but I am uncomfortable with constructions of the law that rely too much on the forebearance of officialdom.

Violation of the CFAA, including the one charged in the Drew case, can be a felony. Are you potentially guilty of a felony every time you violate the terms and conditions of a website? The idea is pretty ludicrous, given the number of sites out there with lengthy terms and conditions that almost no one reads. For example, the YouTube terms and conditions require that “If you use the YouTube Embeddable Player on your website, you must include a prominent link back to the YouTube website on the pages containing the Embeddable Player ….” Under the CD Cal US Attorney’s interpretation, failure to include the prominent link to YouTube on a page where you have the embedded player is at least a misdemeanor, and possibly a felony violation of the CFAA. To quote from Charles Dickens, “if the law says that, the law is an ass.”

Perhaps, but there’s nowhere in the statute that she’s being charged with that distinguishes between an adult and a minor. All of the examples you’ve mentioned are good ones, but the difference between those and this case is that the statutes specifically prohibit actions toward a minor.

“If she isn’t punished for violating federal statutes, what type of public policy standard does that raise? Doesn’t slippery-slope argue that this will give adults who wish to mimic Lori Drew legal sanctuary?”

No, specifically because of the last point I’ve made. Missouri enacted a cyberbullying statute this past July in response to this case; many states have done the same, and the federal government is looking into adding one as well. The loophole is, for all intents and purposes, closed. Could they have made the law retroactive and then prosecuted her under it? I think that would probably open its own can of worms, but it’s something to consider. However, they didn’t, and — morally reprehensible as it may be — Drew didn’t actually commit any crime.

But more to the crux of your argument: accepting that a mere violation of a ToS agreement constitutes “exceeding authorized access” means that, specifically because there is no way to distinguish between minors and adults in this statute, ANY person who does so violates the CFAA. After all, “protected information” is in the eye of the beholder, and the packet hopping takes care of “interstate communication.” The examples I gave may seem petty and silly to prosecute; that was my point. But based on the logic applied in this case, were it to be successful (and, for the record, it’s looking more and more likely that it won’t), they could all be prosecuted. Surely we can agree that that would constitute a bastardization of the intent of the CFAA?

Again, Drew is reprehensible, and there’s a part of me that feels no sympathy for what’s happening to her. Nevertheless, I can’t argue that I want to uphold the law if I turn a blind eye to it, even for people I find as morally reprehensible as Drew.

In the Drew case, (I feel that) it is arguable that she violated California’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. She violated the MySpace Terms of Service, amongst which are agreeing to provide truthful information in registering and to: refrain from harassing others, promote false information, solicit personal details from anyone under 18, refrain from posting photos of other people without their consent (I’m pretty sure that the picture’s owner (Josh Evans) had no clue they were using his picture).

They broke the terms of service (which have the potential threat of legal action listed below) and thus, used false information to access MySpace’s servers.

I’m doing my best to leave the “angry retributivist” part of me out of this viewpoint (as I could go on for weeks about how much punishment this woman deserves, given her lack of remorse and the vileness of her actions), but it is very clear that she DID exceed her authorized access of MySpace’s servers, and thus is guilty of Computer Fraud. Essentially, it is the same as using someone else’s password to access their computer and cause them distress by deleting their memo or something. You are using information which is not your own, to falsely access information to which you are not privy (I doubt the victim would have shared the same information, had she known that she was really talking to an aging, conscienceless neighbor as opposed to a boy her age), for the purpose of harassing/distressing that person. I think they have a very good case here. I’m pretty sure getting the minor to discuss things sexual in nature is a whole new can of worms (that they should pursue) in this case. Last-minute addition: adults can’t view the profiles of people under 18 unless they are their friends, right? I think MySpace limits it so that you cannot.

I feel that the main difference between this case and the references that you made to “To Catch a Predator” (awesome show, by the way) and Marquette’s IT policy is that in those examples, the victims were adults. I think that the risk one assumes when entirely trusting someone online should be regarded differently when it involves children. We can’t start holding issues involving children to the same expectations as adults, frankly. Children are being protected online from perverts, scams, sex offenders, pornography, and the like, so why not against cruel adults who prey on them merely because they are children? If she isn’t punished for violating federal statutes, what type of public policy standard does that raise? Doesn’t slippery-slope argue that this will give adults who wish to mimic Lori Drew legal sanctuary? I feel that a line of demarcation must be drawn where children are involved. She broke the law, and did so in a particularly abhorrent way, she deserves, from any standpoint, to be punished.

As for your friend and her prank (which is pretty funny, in its own right) and the chain letter, I don’t really have an opinion of that. Let that person who lords over the use of Marquette’s network deal with that.