California judge: trolling with someone else’s Facebook is identity theft
By Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman
From time to time, we will be running posts from Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Sometimes they will look similar to other articles appearing on Ars; other posts will be more “bloggy” in nature. This is one of the latter.
Venkat Balasubramani’s take
Rolando was a juvenile who received an unsolicited text message with the victim’s e-mail password. According to the court, he used the password to gain access to the victim’s Facebook account and posted several sexually inappropriate messages from the victim’s account. The Facebook posts included posts on the walls of the victim’s friends and the following change to the victim’s profile:
Hey, Face Bookers, [sic] I’m [S.], a junior in high school . . . I want to be a pediatrician but I’m not sure where I want to go to college. I have high standards for myself and plan to meet them all. I love to suck dick.
The victim testified that she suffered stigma as a result of these and other posts. “I used to love going to school,” she said. “Now, I dread dealing with this every day.”
The juvenile was prosecuted under a California statute (section 530.55) which applies to anyone who:
wilfully obtains personal identifying information [of the victim and] uses that information for any unlawful purpose, including to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, real property, or medication information.
Did the defendant willfully obtain the victim’s “personal identifying information”? The court holds that, despite his argument that he “passively receiv[ed] the text message” which contained the victim’s password information, he “willfully” obtained it because he remembered it or otherwise recorded it so he could use it later. Moreover, the court concludes that the defendant willfully obtained the victim’s Facebook account password. The record was devoid of evidence as to how exactly the defendant accessed the victim’s Facebook account, and in the absence of any such evidence, the court says it’s “reasonable to infer” that the defendant reset the victim’s Facebook password using her e-mail password and then gained access to the victim’s Facebook account.
Did the defendant use the victim’s information for an unlawful purpose? In addition to obtaining the information willfully, the perpetrator has to use the information for an “unlawful purpose.” The first possibility was that the defendant violated section 647.6, which applies when someone “annoys or molests any child under 18.” However, under California Supreme Court precedent, this statute requires a motivation by “an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in the victim.” [emphasis added] The court concluded that the facts did not fit into this statute because the defendant had no real contact with the victim other than the Facebook posts and he also testified that he “intended his comments to be taken as a joke.”
The second possibility was that the defendant used the victim’s personal information to commit a tortuous act. The defendant argued that “unlawful purpose” as used in the statute should be restricted to criminal conduct, but the court disagreed, noting legislative intent to expand the scope of the statute in amending it.
The court also pointed to the fact that the definitions section of the statute included the term “crime,” and the legislature chose instead to use “any unlawful purpose.” The defendant practically conceded that his conduct satisfied the requirements of a civil defamation claim. The court therefore finds that the defendant’s act constituted libel and constituted an “unlawful purpose” under the statute. Alternatively, the court held that the defendant’s conduct satisfied the statute because it also constituted a criminal offense. The defendant’s actions violated section 653m, which makes illegal any contact with another person using “obscene language… by means of an electronic communication device… with [the] intent to annoy.”
California judge: trolling with someone else’s Facebook is identity theft
It’s tough to muster much sympathy for the defendant, who was previously in trouble for reckless driving when he drove his car “at three girls in the school parking lot, but stopped abruptly several feet away from them in an attempt to scare them.”
The definition of “personal identifying information” in the statute is broad. (We ran into an analogous problem in the Pineda case). It looks like the court focused on the Facebook password as being the information in question that supported the violation of the statute, but the opinion is not totally clear on this. A broad definition of personal identifying information coupled with the court’s decision to allow tortuous conduct to satisfy the “unlawful purpose” could lead to a statute that is expansive in scope and which should raise everyone’s First Amendment hackles. Given that the defendant used the e-mail password to access Facebook, this does not feel to me like a case that pushed the statute to the limit.
Interestingly, the defendant argued that his conduct would violate California’s newly enacted e-personalization statute (section 528.5) which was effective January 1, 2011, and the fact that this statute was passed demonstrates that the legislature did not view his conduct as violating the previously existing statute. The court disagrees with this argument, noting that the newly enacted e-personalization statute has different elements from section 530.5:
Section 528.5 does not include a requirement that a perpetrator obtain personal identifying information. As a result, a person could violate section 528.5 by merely posting comments on a blog impersonating another person. There is no requirement, under these circumstances, that the person obtain a password—a key distinction.
Yikes. This is precisely what is wrong with California’s e-personalization statute.
Eric Goldman’s take
This case plays out as a Greek-style tragedy in three parts.
Part one: Someone sent the victim’s e-mail password to the defendant. The court is vague about who did this or how that person got the victim’s password.
This brings up one of my modern rules for clean living: never tell anyone else your passwords. Ever. (Another rule for clean living is to constantly change your passwords, but this is harder to obey). I am such a stickler about my passwords that I don’t tell them to anyone. Certainly not to campus IT when they want to muck with my computer, but I don’t even tell my passwords to my wife. (FWIW, my wife has told me many of her passwords, but I would never use them without her express instructions). I know there’s a debate about the spouse-and-passwords dilemma. It’s not that I don’t trust my wife. I do, completely. But my rule is clean and simple. If someone other than me types in my password, then they ripped it off. (We’ll revisit the problem of accessing a logged-in computer in a bit).
In this case, we don’t know why the password-obtain-er had the victim’s password. Perhaps it was hacked. More likely, the victim made an error in judgment. Either way, the defendant apparently used the e-mail password to help reset the Facebook password and access the Facebook account.
Part two: The defendant misused the victim’s password. It goes without saying that the defendant had no business logging into the victim’s e-mail or Facebook account. Doing so was inappropriate even if the defendant merely just looks around, given the amount of private information stored in email and Facebook accounts. It was even worse to publish content under that person’s name, and worse still to post fake come-ons for sex.
Having said this, once a juvenile finds out he/she can access to a peer’s Facebook account, it seems like it would be almost irresistible not to muck around with it. I don’t want to dismiss this entirely as “kids will be kids,” but I’m sure a nontrivial percentage of kids would take advantage of a peer’s password if the circumstance presented itself. Perhaps it’s like the joyriding of days of old. If people left keys in their cars, some kids would take the cars for a spin. We can enact draconian laws to discourage joyriding, but if keys are left in cars, joyrides are inevitable. Here, the defendant basically took the victim’s Facebook account for a joyride.
What does Estate Planing mean?
An estate plan can significantly impact an individual’s entire family when that person becomes incapacitated or dies. A comprehensive estate plan should designate a guardian for minor children, appoint persons to administer the estate or trusts, appoint an agent to make medical decisions if the individual becomes incapacitated, provide asset protection for those who are unable to manage their own finances, minimize taxes, provide business succession planning, if applicable and any other issues that may impact the individual’s family or business after their death.
Do I need a will?
If you have any property, real or personal, and care who receives that property upon your death, then you need a will.
What is a Simple Will?
A “simple” will is what is typically used when a husband and wife have combined assets that are significantly less than the current estate tax exemption and there is no need for trusts for minor children or others. This type of will usually makes outright gifts to the surviving spouse and then equal shares to the children after both spouses have died.
What is included in my Gross Estate?
Your gross estate includes the value of all property in which you had an interest at the time of your death which also includes life insurance proceeds.
What is my Taxable Estate?
Your taxable estate is your gross estate after allowable deductions which include:
(II) Debts you owed at the time of your death;
(III) The marital deduction which is generally the value of the property that passes from your estate to your surviving spouse;
(IV) The charitable deduction which is generally the value of the property that passes from your estate to the United States, any state, a political subdivision of a state, or to a qualifying charity for exclusively charitable purposes; and
(V) The state death tax which is generally any estate inheritance, legacy, or succession taxes paid as the result of the decedent’s death to any state or the District of Columbia.
What is the current Estate Tax Exemption Amount?
| 2008 | $2,000,000 |
| 2009 | $3,500,000 |
| 2010 | N/A – estate tax is repealed |
| 2011 | $1,000,000 |
What is the current Gift Tax Exemption Amount?
The current (2008) annual gift tax exemption amount is $12,000 per year per person. For example, you may give a gift in the amount of $12,000 per year to as many people as you wish without incurring any taxes. You may also gift more than $12,000, however, it will be deducted from your life time exclusion amount of $1,000,000 (in effect through 2009) and also requires that you file a gift tax return.
Who pays the Gift Tax?
If and when a gift tax is due, it is the donor (the person making the gift) that is taxed. The gift recipient does not pay any taxes.
What is a Living Will?
This is a document that governs the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from an individual when that person is no longer able to make decisions regarding his or her medical treatment.
What is a Trust?
A trust is a legal entity created by a person (grantor) to hold property for the benefit of designated beneficiaries. Under a trust, property is actually transferred into the name of the trust and the trustee is charged with the responsibility to manage the trust assets and income for the benefit of all beneficiaries.
If you’ve been stopped for a DUI, Contact
an Attorney as soon as possible.
I have been charged with driving under the influence, when should I get an attorney?
When charged with driving under the influence or driving while ability impaired it is important to consult with counsel as soon as possible as there are important
decisions to make regarding your license. There are often two problems with alcohol driving offenses, problems with your license and problems with the Colorado law. An attorney can
guide you through these issues.
What is DUI and DWAI?
DUI is shorthand for Driving Under the Influence. A person is guilty of DUI if he or she drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle and is substantially
under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any chemical or controlled substance to the extent that his or her mental faculties are impaired or when his or her blood
alcohol level (BAC) is above the legal limit of .08 for driving under the influence and .05 for driving while ability impaired which means impairment to even the slightest
degree.
Can I still be in trouble for driving, even if my BAC is below the legal limit?
Yes. It is also unlawful to drive with your normal faculties impaired. Normal faculties are those faculties of a person, such as the ability to walk, talk, judge
distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies, etc. Cases have been taken to trial by prosecutors where there was no test result, or where the result shows less
than the legal limit. However, Colorado law shows a presumption you were not impaired if the test results are less than .08.
Does the car have to be moving for me to be guilty of DUI?
No. You can be arrested for DUI by driving while over the legal BAC in your state or while impaired. But, you need not actually operate the car in order to be arrested.
You can still be found guilty if you had the capability and power to dominate, direct, or regulate the vehicle, regardless of whether you were exercising that capability or
power at the time of the arrest. In other words, simply sitting behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition can lead to your arrest for DUI by being in actual physical
control of the car.
Can I fight my DUI arrest?
Yes. You may request a review of the drivers license suspension by the department of motor vehicles within seven days following your arrest. If challenging the alcohol
content, the hearing officer will look to see if the officer had reason to stop you and whether there is a blood or breath test result greater than .08. If challenging a
refusal action the hearing officer will look to see if the officer had reason to stop you, reason to ask you to take a test and whether you refused to submit to a test of
your blood or breath.
If I am arrested for a DUI, will I lose my license?
Yes, the law enforcement officer will seize your license if you are arrested for DUI with an unlawful BAC of .08 or greater or after you refused to submit to a blood or
breath test. Your license will be seized, and the officer will issue you a traffic ticket and a notice or revocation. If you give a blood test, the officer will not seize
your license on the spot, but it may be revoked at a later date.
How long will I lose my license?
If you have refused to submit to a chemical or physical test, your license will likely be suspended for a period of one year. If you take a blood or breath test that is
greater than a .08, if the hearing officer finds that the officer had probable cause to pull you over and it is a valid test, the revocation is three months for a first
time and at least a year for subsequent offenses.
What else will happen to me?
In most cases where a plea is entered to an alcohol offense, there is an alcohol evaluation and treatment ordered by the Judge. There is mandatory community service and
court costs of at least $450.00. The possible maximum penalties include a year in jail and fines. The usual first time offender is given the chance at probation with
classes and community service. Repeat offenders face mandatory jail along with classes and probation. Multiple repeat offenders face maximum jail from most Judges.
What are my Miranda Rights?
When an officer has arrested a person and starts to ask them questions about a crime, the officer must first advise the person of their Constitutional rights. Most often,
the advisement is this:
– You have the right to remain silent.
– Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
– You have the right to be advised by an attorney before answering any questions.
– If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you free of charge.
Will I be able to get my case dismissed because I was not read my rights?
Probably not. But if you were interrogated after being placed in custody, your statements can not be used against you.
What other rights do I have as a defendant?
1. You have the right to enter a plea of Not Guilty, and set your case for trial.
2. You have a right to a speedy trial. This means that, unless the defense requests a continuance or waives speedy trial, you must be tried within six months of entering a plea.
3. You have the right to an attorney. If you qualify, you may have an attorney appointed to represent you. This is usually done through the Colorado Public Defender’s Office.
4. You have the continued right to remain silent, and can not be forced to testify at trial. The decision to testify is yours and yours alone.
5. You have the right to be presumed innocent until the prosecution proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the crimes charged.
6. At trial, you have the right to call witnesses on your behalf (if necessary through a subpoena commanding witnesses to appear), and to cross examine the witnesses called to testify against you.
7. Finally, you have the right to appeal any ruling against you.
I already have two alcohol offenses. What will happen to my license if I have a third conviction?
Your license will be automatically revoked.
I have three serious offenses within seven years, what will become of my license?
It will be automatically revoked for five years as a Habitual Traffic Offender.
What will happen if I do not complete the classes or public service ordered by the Court?
You may have your probation revoked, and will be subject to possible jail time.
