Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:21 pm

by John W. Dozier



I have often said that the left wingers are all for the right to free speech, until they don't agree with it. Time and again you'll see discussions and postings about using the Streisand Effect to retaliate against someone for offering an opposing voice. It is a policy aimed at destroying dissension, particularly in Internet legal and policy areas. "First things we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Consider the context of the statement if you don't already know and it quickly becomes apparent that this effort to bully, undermine, attack and destroy lawyers is the rallying cry for the police state...a world in which dissidents are held out to public scorn and ridicule by a vicious mob (Streisand Effect) or relentlessly attacked by masked intruders (anonymous speakers). This is the world in which we live today. Honest, honorable, intelligent, well mannered, battle worn veterans of the world rarely participate in online dialogue because of the attacks their participation invites. And so you get a very one sided, jaded, biased perspective on Internet law and policy issues. The far left liberals not only control the message, but police the web for anyone not drinking their kool-aid.

Table of Contents

Copyright Infringement: Enforcement is Double-Edged
Copyright Registration: DMCA is a Powerful Tool to Attack an Infringer
DMCA Copyright "Take-Down" Notice Stinks
Attempted Copyright Infringement Will Eventually Pass Congress
Utah Needs to Lay Off Web Businesses
Criminal Spam Prosecutions Begin
Cybersquatting and Trademark Infringement
The Changing Legal Geography of Your Online Business
Traverse Internet Law on Hacking
ISPs Find A New Revenue Model in Commercial E-Mail
Real Internet Lawyers Find Solutions
Defamation Immunity Isn't Clear
When Are You Responsible For Your Affiliate's Misconduct?
Google and E-Bay Fight It Out
Music Industry Record Labels Are In Trouble
The Law of Protecting Data
Silicon Valley Lawyer this Week
SES Conference Update
"Internet Attorney": How We Work
HostingCon and Upcoming Conferences
Start-Up Legal Evaluations
Dozier Internet Law Coming to The Big Apple
Dozier Internet Law Review of Recent Legal Developments
Copyright Rights and Free Speech
Dozier Internet Law on The Scary and Unknown Weapon of Contributory Copyright Infringement
MySpace Hacking Indictment Well Supported
November 1 Drop Dead Date for Compliance with New FTC ID Theft Rules
Hackers Hack Away at DefCon Annual Convention
New Affiliate Marketing Laws Go Into Effect October 1, 2008
Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report
Ronald J. Riley and Sued
$400,000 Judgment For Using Competitor Name
Dozier Internet Law v. Ronald J. Riley, et. al.
US Senate Passes Pro-IP Bill
MySpace Suicide Case Dismissal Coming?
MySpace Hacking Case
MySpace Suicide Case Media Coverage Revealing
Top Five Tips For Start-Ups To Protect Assets
Dozier Internet Law on How to Use a Competitor's Name To Drive Sales
The "Public Citizen" Defamation Penalty
New Laws Are Coming
The Sky is Falling?
Internet Law Attorney at Affiliate Summit
Copyright Lawyer Perspective on Affiliate Summit West 2009 Day One
Public Citizen Bullying
Wikipedia Editing and Section 230
DMCA Takedown Notice Abuses
Kids Indicted, Parents Need To Step Up
Amend Section 230 Immunity Today
Jones Day Law Firm Wins
Internet Lawyer Comments on $12.5 Million Judgment
Free Copyright Lawyer Warning Notice
New "Red Flag" Law Coming May 1
Domino's Pizza Video Outrage
Spam Liability for Affiliate Misconduct
Copyright Lawyer on Pirate Bay Convictions
Defamation of The Dead on NPR Monday
Defamation Lawyers' Top Ten Scofflaw Blogger Personas
Golf Lesson: Ten Things You Never Want To Hear On The Tee
MySpace Suicide Case Dismissal
Google Bomb Book Coming September 1
Physicians Have Rights Too
Google Destined For Collapse?
Google Bomb Book Coming
Defamation Book
Dozier Internet Law v. Ronald Riley with Public Citizen
Jury Increases Verdict in Music Copyright Case Retrial
Online Retailer Lawyer Offers Top Tips For Data Loss
What Can Get You Sued?
Internet Lawyer Thoughts
How To Hire An Internet Lawyer
Blogger Busted By FBI
Top Tips To Find The Right Internet Lawyer
Affiliate Marketers Terminated Over State Sales Tax
"Twitter Twomb" Replacing "Google Bomb"?
Dismissal of MySpace Criminal Case
DEFCON Spinning Out of Control?
$675,000 Copyright Infringement Judgment
Google Bomb Book Review
Senator's Review: "Google Bomb is a Great Book!"
Google Bomb Book Available on Amazon Launches
Google Bombs Away
Rosemary Port v. Google
Lori Drew MySpace Suicide Conviction Thrown Out
Harvard Attacks Reputation Management Industry
Dozier Interview on DC TV
Harvard Prof. Backs Section 230 Changes
Dec. 1 Effective Date of New FTC Regulations on Online Advertising
Webhost Hit With $32.4M Judgment For Hosting Site
Google Embraces Reputation Management Techniques
Six Get Prison For Website Harassment
MySpace Postings Net Criminal Conviction
US Senate Slams Online Marketers
Edward Heyburn Attacks His Former Employer
Free Lawyers for Citizen Journalists
Section 230 Protections Eroding
Competitor Keys AdWords Off Lawyer Partner Name
Google Launches Law Search Engine
Strongest Cyber-Bully Law in US Passes
New FTC Online Marketing Rules Effective Today
FTC Regs Apply to LeadGen Industry
The Far Left Virtual Police State
Traverse Internet Law at Upcoming Conferences
The Advertising Network Dilemma
Negative Option and Continuation Billing Programs
Google Runs Into Trouble Oversees
Traverse Internet Law at Search Engine Strategies Conference
Both Sides of Section 230 Immunity
Traverse Internet Law on WebMaster Radio Tomorrow
Traverse Internet Law at AdTech San Fran
National Cyberlaw Bar Association Forming
Internet Lawyer Summit in Vegas
Traverse Internet Law Data Loss Analysis
Medical Justice and Eric Goldman's Attack Site
MySpace Murder in Virginia
Copyright Lawyer, Copyright Attorneys, and Copyright Lawyers
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:26 pm

Copyright Infringement: Enforcement is Double-Edged, by John W. Dozier

October, 2005


As attorneys specializing in the litigation of Internet disputes, not a day goes by that we do not hear about a small online business getting ripped off through the theft of online content. Sometimes the property taken is a website or part of a website. Other times it is certain code or an e-book. But whenever it happens, you can be sure of one thing: It has value to the thief. Perhaps the perpetrator is a programmer taking a lazy “short-cut,” or someone looking to benefit from your optimized site by getting a more favorable indexed position on a major search engine. Of course, the most common type of infringer is one who tries to take your business away from you by using your own property. Let’s walk through a process you should implement in order to assess what your next step should be when you learn that your valuable content or property has been stolen.

You may discover the theft from a customer email, an automated electronic monitoring service report, or search engine results. The first thing to do is to try and determine the scope and extent of the infringement. Once you have done this, create a record of the infringement. The simplest method is to print out the infringing content, or save the content in an offline format. Then you should research the infringer and find out as much as you can about the site(s) involved, the owner, the web host and the upstream provider. Take a look at the archives and see if the site used to reveal information about the operator that is missing now. This won’t take long, but these efforts will hopefully garner the information necessary to make an informed, and smart, business decision.

If you are inclined to make assessments concerning the law of copyright as it applies to your situation, visit the copyright office home page for a nice overview on the law. The search engines are also great sources for information about copyright infringement. Be forewarned, however, that some of the information is right, some of it is wrong, and some of it is simply shortsighted and overly simplistic. For instance, under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) you can personally serve a “take down notice” on an infringer’s host and get the infringing materials pulled off of the site. Sometimes that approach is adequate and it will work fine. Other times it backfires: the notice is ignored except that upon receipt the web host brazenly facilitates the transfer of the site to a host in another country where the DMCA does not apply. You really have three options: File the “take down notice” yourself, forget about the infringement, or hire a lawyer.

While you are searching the web about copyright infringement, you will likely find extensive references to the law of copyright. Missing is a discussion about the strategic and tactical considerations that go into pursuing an infringer. Since every situation is different, it is impossible to go through every scenario. This is where legal counsel can be of real assistance. You are looking for quick and definitive decisions and actions. Legal counsel needs to recommend a course of action after considering the impact, and implications, of issuing a cease and desist notice to the infringer, issuing a DMCA “take-down” notice, issuing a demand letter to the web host for damages for contributory copyright infringement, drafting a lawsuit and enclosing it with the communications, filing copyright applications, and/or filing suit. The decision on how to proceed at this point could mean the difference between immediate submission by the infringer to your demands, and six figure attorney’s fees with the infringing site using your property, and still competing against you, but now resting comfortably in Uzbekistan, outside the reach of any US authority.

Every situation is different and the remedies available are truly double-edged swords. A cease and desist letter could cause the infringer to remove the stolen content, or it could be a warning for the infringer to duck and hide. A demand letter to a web host could result in the infringing website being pulled down, or it could motivate the host to assist its client in moving the site offshore. A lawsuit could result in an almost immediate court order requiring the infringer to cease its use of your creative works, but expensive temporary restraining orders rest in many a lawyer’s files, unserved (and ineffectual) because the infringer can’t be found.

Let’s hope your copyright infringement claim is a “clean” one (someone operating a legitimate business in the US). Your focus can then be on making a smart business decision with a very manageable downside and lower risk, and also with a reasonable expectation of getting your lawyer’s fees and monetary damages paid. Remember that the tools of this trade are double edged swords, so make sure you consider all of the strategic and tactical issues before acting. Oh, and if you are a victim of one of the more nasty infringers out there, he may look like he is in New York, or California or Florida. No matter where you think he may be, no matter where his web host is located, no matter what address is on his site, and no matter what address he used to register his domain names, my guess is that if you really want to find him, try the beautiful white beaches of the Caribbean.

The information in this article is not intended to be legal advice. Always consult your attorney when faced with legal issues.

John W. Dozier, Jr.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:30 pm

Copyright Registration: DMCA is a Powerful Tool to Attack an Infringer, by John W. Dozier


COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION IS a great concept. In order to put the world on notice of your ownership of certain creative works, the government allows you to send a copy of your work to the U.S. Copyright Office, and it will maintain the records for you. For a small registration filing cost, you get “standing” to sue someone who is infringing and become eligible to recover “statutory damages” and attorney fees from the defendant. In today’s world that means your lawyer can file a lawsuit, and if the matter is tried several years later (after six figures in attorney and expert fees), you can hope to one day successfully force the defendant to pay you. Obviously this is not a real appetizing option for most small businesses.

The problem with theft of images, text, content and code in the virtual world is very real. Many businesses believe that unless they have a registered copyright on their creative works there is little that can be done about theft. In fact, that used to be the case. The best tactic available to protect unregistered creative works formerly involved racing over to the copyright office and filing an application, often after losing the right to recover statutory damages and attorney fees. Not any more, though.

In the 1990s, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It included a very powerful tool to quickly attack the theft of unregistered copyright-protected materials so victims of theft of creative works can reach out into cyberspace and aggressively pursue an infringer. This tool, known as the “takedown notice,” requires a website host to pull down an allegedly infringing website or page merely upon receipt of a specified notice from the owner or its lawyer. No lawsuit is necessary. The implications to the host are significant: the failure to pull it down exposes the hosting company to liability for copyright infringement under traditional doctrines of law, and it also loses immunity created by the DMCA. The law giveth, and the law taketh away.

There are issues still being worked out on the legal side with respect to takedown notices. Not all companies are hosts of the infringing materials, and it is unclear whether search engines have a responsibility to suspend advertising and remove indexed-search results for a site upon receipt of a DMCA notice. Most will do so when pressed by legal counsel. It is likewise unsettled as to whether an upstream ISP can be forced to terminate service to a hosting company once immunity is lost and the hosting company has copyright-infringement liability. There are many legal issues yet to be decided, but the tool is still highly effective in resolving many of the online infringement problems on the web.

If the takedown notice is used improperly, there are significant financial implications to the issuer. A takedown notice puts a company out of business, and you may be liable. I still cringe when I see these automated services offering DMCA takedown-notice issuance. The format of this tool is not its problem. Your big challenge, if you try to do this on your own, is to interpret a very complex area of law, determine your rights and then apply that law to the facts to identify infringement. Sometimes it is simple, and anyone can do it. Sometimes it is complex. But by no means is this a do-it-yourself remedy.


The information in this article is not intended to be legal advice. Always consult your attorney when faced with legal issues.

John Dozier is president of Dozier Internet Law, PC, a law firm representing small and mid-size online businesses.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:33 pm

DMCA Copyright "Take-Down" Notice Stinks, by John W. Dozier

May 23, 2007

Am I the only one wondering what Congress was thinking when they passed the DMCA website take-down provision? Basically, if you are someone with nothing to lose (and we see them everyday), all you have to do is serve a DMCA notice on the webhost of a site and it, by law, must be taken the web, gone, kaput...and while the law does allow for it to be placed back up AFTER ten days if the site owner files an affidavit denying copyright infringement, the damage is obviously done. It is bizarre to think that in the US of A we effectively allow the total seizure of a business with no legal involvement, no due process, no real repercussions to abusers, and no meaningful validation process prior to using this "online death penalty". Do you get the idea that someone was asleep at the switch in Washington when this made it through? Bad law. Needs to be repealed or amended into something a whole lot more appropriate. We are on both sides of this issue all the time in our law practice, and sometimes it helps our client, and sometimes it hurts our client. But it still stinks.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:34 pm

Attempted Copyright Infringement Will Eventually Pass Congress, by John W. Dozier

May 24, 2007

All of a sudden the cries of contempt are everywhere. The Bush administration has passed to Congress proposed legislation which makes it a crime to even ATTEMPT to infringe on a copyright. The free speech, individual rights, and liberal commentators are decrying this legislation....after all, how, they ask, can we prosecute someone for attempting to commit a crime? I used to be a criminal defense lawyer in the 1980s. One of my fondest memories was winning an ATTEMPTED murder case, which was right after I kind of won an ATTEMPTED grand larceny case, and right before I soundly lost an ATTEMPTED prison break trial. Hhhmmm. Was I dreaming? Coincidentally, I don't remember having any attempted jaywalking, attempted drunk driving, or attempted cursing and abusing cases. Isn't the difference obvious?

It is a matter of degree! And our laws have quite capably addressed attempted property damage crimes through establishment of financial thresholds. It will likely happen here also. We don't want government prosecuting some website business for using an image from a competitor. We probably don't mind our government going after the owner of a website that is selling exact copies of a popular movie and making six figures. It's all about money, frankly.

There are some scary concepts in the new legislation dealing with the ability to pursue alleged infringers when copyright materials are not registered. This opens up a can of worms. Maybe some of these ACLU types should focus their time and efforts on this issue. The payback will be better. And if you can figure out what business concerns are pushing this legislation, I bet you will agree with me that it's all about money anyway.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:36 pm

Utah Needs to Lay Off Web Businesses, by John W. Dozier

May 29, 2007

If you have a web business, it is likely you have to comply with all of the laws of the states into which you are marketing or have clients. The power of states to influence the conduct of others around the country has never been stronger. And with that apparent absolute power comes, unfortunately, bad laws. Utah seems to lead the way in passing new laws that are just bad ideas (like the spam/commercial email registry and the recent PPC debacle). Lately I have been noticing a more active enforcement by Utah of its own consumer protection statutes and policies against our clients, insisting that the laws of Utah must be followed no matter where a website or customer resides. Come on. That's just silly. Utah needs to stop acting like the Internet watchdog for everyone else in the country. Although the various federal departments charged with enforcing our laws are overwhelmed, I think it is wrong for Utah to continue to aggressively pursue its own interests while attempting to supplant the authority of other state and federal governments to establish the proper rules of online commerce.

Which leads me to the main thought behind this posting. When I was a lobbyist at the Virginia General Assembly there was a representative of a Northern Virginia region who kept filing bill after bill, year after year, attempting to deal with access by children to adult content. As well intentioned as he might have been, he did not have an understanding of the technology or business of the web to even get close to drafting a decent bill that could withstand constitutional challenge. In short order, as others began filing Internet bills and total confusion ensued, a new committee of the House of Delegates was formed to deal solely with online and technology issues. Looking back over the past ten years, I have to say that Virginia has passed very few bad bills (other than a version of UCITA) dealing with the regulation of the Internet, and those that have passed often became the model for other states to follow.

That's why Utah really riles me. It can be done right, if you want to. You either lead like Virginia (the founding state of the Internet), follow like many other states, or get out of the way. need to get out of the way.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:36 pm

Criminal Spam Prosecutions Begin, by John W. Dozier

May 31, 2007

I guess it was just a matter of time. I have been wondering, ever since a Virginia jury sentenced a spammer to seven years in prison, when and where the next wave of criminal prosecutions would come. The "spam king", according to news reports, was indicted in Washington state and arrested yesterday.

I don't like these criminal prosecutions for sending commercial e-mail, even when rather nefarious methodologies are used. Is it any wonder that the prosecution comes in Microsoft's backyard? Microsoft spends a lot of money each year on attacking spam from a technical standpoint, but isn't that the cost of doing business? These major ISPs (you know who you are) act like they are doing the public a favor in combating spam, but they forget that e-mail was the "killer application" that gave them life in the first place. Sometimes I think that all they are really doing is creating a demand for charging commercial e-mailers to let "spam" make it through their systems. So, if that is the case, why is government protecting these private commercial interests with aggressive and expensive prosecutions? One thing is for sure. All of our commercial e-mail clients will have to be even more aware of the criminal risks with this apparent change in strategy to combat spam. I wonder if the impact of this will simply be to move more mailers towards buying the ISPs' spam mailing services? What a great marketing department...the US Attorney's office!

I find it interesting, by the way, that this guy is supposed to be living the high life yet Microsoft has a $7 Million unpaid civil judgment against him. If he has funds, has the ritzy condo, sports car etc., then I don't understand why Microsoft hasn't been willing or able to seize those assets in execution on its judgment? We handle a lot of defense litigation against Microsoft, and their spam business people, in-house counsel, and outside law firms are very thorough, very smart, and very effective. Is this guy really as big as they say? I guess we'll find out, buy I can tell you that sending a million e-mails a day is a relatively lightweight load for commercial e-mailers, although it sounds like a huge amount to someone outside the industry.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:37 pm

Cybersquatting and Trademark Infringement, by John W. Dozier

June 03, 2007

A lot has been written lately about the Cameroon govt. deal for domain names. If you aren't up on things, one individual has locked up a contract having all domain names not purchased (.cm names) point to a fairly typical PPC parking page. So, when someone accidentally misspells a domain name they are directed to a page with advertising for competitor ads. It is reported that such use gets around the domain name rules since the owner of the page does not take ownership of the domain name and there is not much that can be done. I dare say, however, that if an online retailer licensed the use of a competitor's domain name, a trademark infringement action would be coming. And I can envision other claims that could be asserted under various state unfair trade practice statutes.

It brings home one important point. You can't beat the experience of litigators and trial lawyers to maneuver through some of the complex legal issues of today. There are not cases to look up on the point, you cannot go to a treatise or a law review article to "get the answer", and the only solution is often resorting to good old brain power coupled with experience and high quality analysis.

Here is what I would do if a client's name was being used in this situation. I would contact the owner, explain that we intend to bring a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit, and in the alternative propose a confidential settlement agreement in which he would turn the name over to our client. I bet you we would get it. Maybe because the owner would go to our website and realize that we are trial lawyers, have no problem pulling the trigger, and envision a tidal wave of litigation that would ensue when we issue our press release. No telling how many cases we have settled because the other side knows we are serious. I recall one extremely large domain name owner telling us, through legal counsel, that instead of filing a UDRP complaint just call them next time and they would transfer the domain name to us.

So, next time you read or hear about an analysis of a legal issue, keep in mind that there are often approaches that are available that will get the intended results, even when it looks like the law may be against you.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:38 pm

The Changing Legal Geography of Your Online Business, by John W. Dozier

June 05, 2007

I am often asked to give my opinion on the issues facing a new online business today. I think the biggest change is a loss of the protections arising from your traditional neighborhood and community. Let's travel back in time and see what I mean.

It's 1990, and you want to start a business. Everyone needs a good accountant and lawyer, you are told. So, you go visit an attorney down the street and he sets you up with a corporation, explains business license and employment rules, and reviews your standard contract. Now, all you need to do is lease that retail space! Your family accountant puts you in touch with a leasing agent. You are ready for your retail store lease to require a hefty deposit and a three year commitment with your personal guarantee for monthly payments. For the budding entrepreneur in days past the legal needs did not require a great financial commitment, but the lease did. And if you ever got sued, your local lawyer could easily handle the matter for you at little expense.

It's 2007, and starting a business has never been easier. Just go and start up an online store for next to nothing and start selling. But something has indeed changed. The days of going to your local lawyer for legal guidance and advice are over. Now, you must consider complying with the laws of every state in which you have customers and/or are advertising online. You are faced with issues that are complex and require specialists. The worst thing that can happen is for you to be sued individually in a far off venue! (You are not going to be sued in your hometown anymore.) And the cost of the defense of federal lawsuits dealing with Internet and intellectual property issues can go into the six figures pretty easily.

Today a business can be launched on a very small budget, but the risks have never been higher. Smart entrepreneurs know that quality legal work up front is worth the price even though everything about launching a web business seems to focus on low cost. Things have changed dramatically, and the days of having comfort that your reputation, honesty, ethics, and offline community will protect you from attack by outsiders is, unfortunately, a thing of the past.

So, when I am asked by the next small business person whether it is easy and cheap to launch an online business, my response is that it depends on what you have to lose, and whether you feel lucky.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:39 pm

Traverse Internet Law on Hacking, by John W. Dozier

June 06, 2007

Traverse Internet Law pursues hackers. And things are a bit murky out there right now as to who is, and is not, a hacker, or cracker. There are criminal laws against hacking, and there is both statutory and common law (trespass to chattels) authority for bringing a civil action against a hacker, but the real problem I have is the failure to distinguish between a serious hacker attempting to do damage and a passive unauthorized access by wandering eyes. So, for instance, the guy who breaks into a hospital's records by finding a hole in its system, and then runs a password program once he is past the initial line of protection, all so he can get in, take confidential medical information about his enemies and publish it on the web, and while he is in the system he intentionally corrupts the database...well, that guy is a real problem, a real criminal, and he deserves what is coming.

On the other hand, someone who visits his competitor's website weekly to check on information available to members, on which there is a user agreement provision prohibiting competitors from visiting, is likely just as guilty, criminally and civilly, under many state laws. Traverse Internet Law tried a hacking case last year in which my client, a CTO of a Fortune 500 company, was indicted on felony charges because he got his estranged wife's email address from one of his kids and went into his wife's password protected online email account. Luckily the prosecutor made a misstep in the middle of trial and my motion to dismiss was granted. But, it was a ridiculous waste of time, and considering my client's job as Chief Technology Officer, any hacking conviction would have ended his career. That result would obviously have been punishment disproportionate to the misconduct.

There is unauthorized access (similar to trespass) and then there is hacking (similar to assault and battery!). We need to get the legislators to understand the difference between the two, and pass some laws that are reflective of reality. Those that access a competing website by borrowing a roommate's password (like just about all college kids do) to see information thousands of others can see is likely trespassing, but he is not a hacker. Not by a long shot.

It is not difficult to see the line, and when the intent of the trespasser is to damage or steal and he actually causes damages above an appropriate threshold, I can appreciate that criminal prosecution is justifiable. Otherwise, let the parties deal with it in civil court.
Site Admin
Posts: 28298
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to John W. Dozier

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest