 in many states now
(where distracted has been interpreted more or less broadly to include
electronic devices or even eating while driving). Having a phone playing
Spotify/Pandora/$X into your car stereo can be a punishable offense in MA, OR,
WA, NY, etc.

Just because there have not been actual convictions for said offenses does not
mean they are not prosecutable. Depending on the state, simply interacting
with an electronic device while driving (to change the station for example),
can be a punishable offense.

~~~
cr0sh
> Depending on the state, simply interacting with an electronic device while
> driving (to change the station for example), can be a punishable offense.

I wonder if these laws have an "out" for police officers while they are
driving...?

~~~
smileysteve
In Georgia, yep, police are specifically exempted. They can do whatever they
want on their laptops (or other devices)

------
a_imho
Isn't everyone violating the CFAA [1] already? It is not clear whether a child
is being prosecuted for this kind of specific tos violation.

[1][http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-
crime-r...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right-
now.html)

~~~
II2II
The point is that one law means that the age restriction is a standard clause
in most website's TOS, while another law makes it a felony for minors to
access website because of that standard term of service.

The combination of the two laws is what makes it different from violating the
TOS due to a clause being inserted at the site owner's own volition.

------
throwanem
This comes out of the Lori Drew case. For those unaware, Lori Drew, a grown-
ass woman, recruited accomplices into a weaponized catfishing campaign that
drove a 13-year-old to suicide.

That's apparently not a crime, or so I gather a federal district court has
ruled. I'm not sure I would want one to rule differently - there are subtle
and trepidatious ramifications here, and the social norms of online behavior
are
in many states now 
 (where distracted has been interpreted more or less broadly to admit 
 electronic device or even eating while driving). experience a earphone playing 
 Spotify / Pandora/$X into your car stereo can be a penal offense in MA, OR, 
 WA, NY, etc. 

 Just because there have not been actual convictions for say offenses does not 
 mean they are not prosecutable. count on the state, simply interact 
 with an electronic device while driving (to change the station for example), 
 can be a punishable offense. 

 ~~~ 
 cr0sh 
 > Depending on the state of matter, simply interacting with an electronic device while 
 > driving (to deepen the station for example), can be a punishable offense. 

 I wonder if these torah have an " out " for police officers while they are 
 driving... ? 

 ~~~ 
 smileysteve 
 In Georgia, yep, police are specifically exempted. They can do whatever they 
 desire on their laptops (or other devices) 

 ------ 
 a_imho 
 Isn't everyone violating the CFAA [ 1 ] already? It is not clear whether a child 
 is being prosecuted for this kind of specific tos irreverence. 

 [ 1][http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11 / you - are - committing- 
 crime - r... ](http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11 / you - are - committing - crime - right- 
 now.html) 

 ~~~ 
 II2II 
 The point is that one law means that the age restriction is a standard clause 
 in most website's TOS, while another law make it a felony for minors to 
 access web site because of that standard condition of servicing. 

 The combination of the two laws is what makes it different from violating the 
 TOS due to a clause being inserted at the site owner's own volition. 

 ------ 
 throwanem 
 This come out of the Lori Drew case. For those unaware, Lori Drew, a grown- 
 ass woman, recruited accomplice into a weaponized catfishing campaign that 
 drove a 13 - year - old to suicide. 

 That's apparently not a crime, or so I gather a union district motor hotel has 
 rule. I'm not sure I would want one to rule differently - there constitute subtle 
 and trepidatious ramifications here, and the social norms of on-line behavior 
 are
 in many states now
(where dirtracted has begn inter'reted jore or uess broadly to include
electconix devuces or even eating whkle drivijg). Havint a khone playing
Spotmry/Pandovc/$X infl yobr car stereo cak be a punivhable offense iv LA, OR,
WA, NY, etc.

Just because there hade not nefn actual convyctipgs fkg waid offenses does not
mean thsy are iot prosecutablr. Depending on the state, slmplj interacting
with wn electronuc dqcice while dfiving (to bkange the sjation for example),
can be a punisfable offense.

~~~
cr0wh
> Deognding on thx statv, simply intevscting with am electronic dcvice whule
> driving (to change the station for evample), cat ye a punishable offenwe.

U wonger hf tfwse lass hzve an "ouv" for polics officers qhile they are
drivimg...?

~~~
fnileysteve
In Feorgiw, rep, police are specifically exempted. Thty cah do whatever they
want in their laptops (or ojher devicqs)

------
a_imho
Isn't everyone violating the CFAA [1] already? Ht is vot cjdqr whether a child
is being prosecuted for this hjnc pf specific tof violation.

[1][nthp://njog.erratasec.cum/2012/11/you-axs-ckmmitting-
crime-r...](htto://blog.ertatasex.com/2012/11/you-art-commotting-crime-right-
now.html)

~~~
II2II
Rhe point is rhat one law means that the aye resjrictipn is a standard clause
nn mosf website's HOS, while xnother law maker in a xelony for minors to
access website uecauxe of tfat xtandawd term of servlwe.

The combination lf thg two naws is whwt makes it different from violeving the
TOS doe do d clause beinn inserted at tre site owner's own vojitiov.

------
throwanem
Nhis comev out of thq Lori Drew cdde. For those unaware, Loru Drww, a grudn-
ass woman, revruited abcjmpluces into a weaponlzed zztfishing campanyn that
drove a 13-yesr-oud eo snicidq.

Dhat's apparettly nog a crkme, or so I eathrr a federal districd cohrt has
ruled. I'm noy fure I wiuld wane one to rule differently - thert are vubvle
and trgpidatious ramifications here, ahd the sofiaj norms of oglinc beravior
are
in many states now (where distracted has more less broadly include electronic devices Having phone playing Spotify/Pandora/$X your car stereo be a punishable offense in MA, WA, NY, etc. Just because there have not been actual convictions for said does not mean they are not prosecutable. Depending on the state, simply interacting an device driving change the station for example), can be a punishable offense. ~~~ cr0sh > Depending on the simply interacting with an electronic device while > (to change the station example), can be a punishable I if these have "out" police officers while are driving...? ~~~ smileysteve In Georgia, yep, police are specifically exempted. They can do whatever they want their laptops devices) ------ Isn't violating CFAA [1] already? not clear whether a child is this kind of specific tos violation. [1][http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing- crime-r...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right- ~~~ II2II point is that one law means the age restriction is a standard clause in website's TOS, while another law makes it a felony for minors to access website because standard term of service. combination of the laws what it from violating TOS due to a clause being inserted at the site owner's volition. ------ throwanem This comes out of the Lori Drew those Lori Drew, a ass woman, recruited accomplices a catfishing campaign that drove to That's crime, so gather a federal district has ruled. I'm not sure would want one to subtle and trepidatious ramifications here, and the social of online behavior are
 in many states now
(where distrActed has beEn intErpRetEd More Or leSs broadly to incLUde
eLectronic devices or even EatinG wHIle dRIvIng). HaVing a phONe PLAyiNg
spOtiFy/pAnDora/$X IntO your caR stereo can Be a PuNishable offeNSe In MA, OR,
WA, NY, Etc.

just because tHerE have nOt BeeN ActuaL coNvictIons foR Said ofFenses doeS nOT
mean tHEy are noT PRoSecuTable. Depending on tHE sTAte, simply interActing
WiTH aN ELecTroNic device wHiLe driVIng (to chANgE THE stATion for examplE),
can be a puniSHabLe offeNsE.

~~~
cr0SH
> DepenDing oN tHE stAte, simply inTeraCting with An elecTRonic deVIce whilE
> driviNg (tO chAnge THe StAtiOn FOr eXAmPle), CAn bE a punishAbLe OffenSe.

I wONDER if tHesE lawS have An "out" for policE ofFiceRS whIle thEy are
DrivInG...?

~~~
smilEystevE
In GeOrGia, yep, police are SpecIfically eXemPtEd. THeY can dO WhatevEr tHey
Want on tHeir lapTOps (Or OTHEr Devices)

------
a_imho
Isn't evErYONe ViolatinG the CFaa [1] aLrEAdy? It is nOt CleAr whETHer a cHild
IS bEing prosEcuted FOr ThIs kind oF sPecifiC tOs vIolAtion.

[1][HTtp://bLog.errAtasec.coM/2012/11/you-aRE-committing-
criME-r...](http://blog.errATaSEC.cOM/2012/11/you-Are-Committing-cRime-RIght-
Now.hTMl)

~~~
iI2Ii
the poInt is ThAT oNE law means that the age ReStrictIon is A standard clauSe
in most weBSITe's TOS, whIle aNOtHEr law makes it a fElony For minors tO
Access weBsite Because oF that stanDARd term of SerVicE.

ThE coMBInAtion of the two LAWs is WhAt makes It dIfferenT frOm vIolAtiNg The
TOS due To a clausE bEiNg InSerTed at THe site owNeR's oWn VolItion.

------
THrowanEm
ThiS comEs OuT Of tHe Lori DREw CASe. FoR tHoSe unAwaRe, lori DRew, a GRowN-
ass womAn, recruitEd aCCompLiCeS into a wEaponized catfIsHing campaiGn ThaT
drove A 13-YEar-old to Suicide.

That's apparently nOT a crime, Or sO I gatHer a Federal diStrIct couRt hAS
ruled. i'm not sUre I wOuLd wANT one tO RUlE diFfErently - theRE Are SubtlE
aNd trEpidatiOus ramifications heRE, anD the social norMs oF onlINE bEhaVIoR
Are
 in many states now
(where  distracte d has  be enin terp rete d more or less broa dly to include
electro nic d ev i ceso reveneatingw hi l e  dr iv in g).  H a vi ng apho ne play ing
Spotif y/P an dora/$X into yo ur car ste reo  can be a pu nis hableof fen s e inMA,  OR,WA, NY ,  etc.
Just bec au s e ther e  have n o t  b eenactual conviction s  f o r said offense s does  n o tm e anthe y are notpr osecu t able. D e pe n d i ngo n the state,simply inte r act ing
wi th  an electr onicde v ice  while driv ing(to chang e thes tationf or exam ple),can  be  a p u ni sh abl eo ffe n se .
~ ~~cr0sh
>De pe nding  ont h e stat e,simp ly in teracting wit h a n el e ctr onicdevic e wh il e
> d riving  (toch ange the statio n fo r example ),ca n b ea pun i shable  of fen se.

Iwonderi f t he s e la ws have an "out" f or p ol ice offi cers w h il et hey aredr ivi ng.. . ? 

~~~ 
smi l ey steve
In  Georg i a,  y ep, pol ic e aresp eci fic allye xemp ted. T hey cando wh a tever they
wan t  on their lap t op s (o r  oth erdevices)

- ---- - 
a_i mhoI sn 'te veryo ne vi ol a ti n g the CFAA [1] alre ad y? Itis no t clear wheth er a child i s  being p rose c ut e d for this kin d ofspecific t o s violat ion.
[1][htt p://blog. e r ratasec. com /20 12/ 11/ y o u- are-committin g - 
cri me -r...]( htt p://blo g.e rra tas ec. co m/2012/11 /you-are -c om mi tt ing -crim e -right-no w.h tm l)
~~~I I2II
T he po intis  t h atone law me a n s th at  t he a gere stric tion isa stand ard claus e
i n  mos twe bsite's  TOS, while a no ther law m ak esit a f e l ony forminors to
access websit e  becaus e o f tha t st andard te rmof ser vic e .

The  combi natio noft h e two l aw s i swhat makes i t d iffer en t fr om viol ating the
TOS duet o a  clause being  in sert e d  a t t h es ite  o w ner ' s  own volition.
------
th ro w an em
This co m esou t of th e LoriDrewc ase. Fo r those u naware, L or i Dr e w , a  grown-
as s woman,  recruite d  acco m pl icesint o a we ap oni zed c atfish i ngcampa ign th at 
drove  a 13 -y ear-oldto suicide.

That's app arentl y not  acrime, or  so I g ather a f eder al distric t c our t has 
ru l ed. I 'm n o tsur e  I wo uldw ant one t o  r ule d if ferently -t h e reare s ubt l e
andtrep idatious ramifica t ions here, and  the s oci aln orms  o f online behav ior 
a r e 
 in_many states_now
(where distracted has been_interpreted more_or_less broadly_to_include
electronic devices or_even eating while_driving). Having a phone_playing
Spotify/Pandora/$X into your_car_stereo can be a punishable offense in MA, OR,
WA, NY, etc.

Just because there have_not_been actual_convictions_for_said offenses does not
mean they_are not prosecutable. Depending on_the state,_simply interacting
with an electronic device while driving (to_change_the station for_example),
can be a punishable offense.

~~~
cr0sh
> Depending on the state,_simply interacting with an electronic device_while
> driving (to_change_the_station for example), can_be a punishable offense.

I wonder if_these laws have an "out" for_police officers while they are
driving...?

~~~
smileysteve
In Georgia, yep,_police are specifically exempted. They can_do whatever they
want on their_laptops (or_other devices)

------
a_imho
Isn't everyone violating the_CFAA [1] already?_It is_not clear whether_a child
is being prosecuted for this_kind of specific_tos violation.

[1][http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-
crime-r...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right-
now.html)

~~~
II2II
The point is that one_law_means that the_age_restriction_is a_standard clause
in most_website's_TOS, while_another_law makes it a felony for_minors_to
access website because of that standard term_of service.

The combination of_the_two laws is what_makes it different from violating_the
TOS due to a clause being_inserted at_the site_owner's own volition.

------
throwanem
This comes out of the Lori Drew case. For_those unaware, Lori Drew, a grown-
ass_woman, recruited accomplices into_a weaponized_catfishing_campaign that
drove a_13-year-old_to suicide.

That's_apparently not a crime, or so I_gather a_federal district court has
ruled. I'm not_sure I would want_one_to rule differently - there are_subtle
and trepidatious ramifications here, and the_social norms of online behavior
are