[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds of websites
Karl Auerbach
karl at cavebear.com
Tue May 15 03:02:06 UTC 2012
On 05/14/2012 07:28 PM, Derek Smythe wrote:
> Also note there is a big leap between saying so-and-so is a criminal,
> vs referring to an incident where a criminal perpetrated a crime. If
> someone sells something on the net, using a "courier" website with a
> domain deliberately meant to deceive, that is fraud By the time this
> pattern has repeated 10 or 20 times, there is no doubt we have a crime
> with a criminal or criminals committing fraud. Likewise, if I
> register a domain to commit fraud using identity theft, it is also a
> crime.
Let's dig a bit deeper - there may be perfectly valid, lawful reasons
why names and websites have odd stuff on 'em, or that the situation may
not rise to either civil or criminal "fraud".
Let's look at the old classical definition of fraud - An intentional
misrepresentation of a material fact upon which another relies to his
detriment.
Is what you are seeing "intentional"? How do you know? I've managed to
screw up many of my own websites with a single slip of the sed script.
Intent is a very sticky and hard question, particularly when one tries
to impute actual subjective intent.
Is it a misrepresentation? That's a tough one. Is
"firestone-tires-go-boom" a misrepresentation that the material on a
website is from the firestone tire company? Or is it just a commentary
or even a joke or parody?
Is it a fact? If so is it a material fact? Or is it ancillary? And
who decides?
Did someone rely upon that misrepresentation? How do we know?
Hypothetical guesses that "somebody could have" don't necessarily meet
that criterion.
Did that reliance lead to detriment?
Even when one gets through all of that there are procedural questions
such as whether you, as an observer, have standing to complain.
The point of this exercise is that accusations are easy; actually
following through and demonstrating that someone is guilty is hard.
It is painfully hard, sometimes (perhaps even often) it is either
impossible or infeasibly hard.
And that's the way it ought to be.
In most legal systems around the world there is some sort of procedure
(most in criminal procedures, but also in civil) that can happen fairly
quickly after an accusation in which the accuser has to provide
something concrete showing that whatever happened looks, walks and
quacks like an unlawful duck.
Those who wish to penetrate whois should, indeed ought, to be required
to place concrete evidence on the table that supports every element of
the accusation (including the identity of the accuser.) Moreover,
accusation is cheap, so there ought to be some sort of pain for
accusations made with reckless disregard of the truth or with
negligence. (BTW, The UK laws of defamation provide an example of a
hurdle which is excessively high.)
Don't forget the opening like of Kafka's book "The Trial" - "Someone
must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing
wrong but, one morning, he was arrested."
--karl--
More information about the At-Large
mailing list