Is it really identity theft
Posted in the Rogersville Forum
#1 Jan 26, 2013
Happened to a Sullivan Central student.
I don't think it is. There is no criminal component here, nothing criminal was done with the false identity.
I say this is bullying by a local school bureaucrat who didn't like being the butt of a joke.
If this is Identity theft, then every SNL actor who portrayed a real person (usually a politician) in a skit on the show should be charged with the same infraction.
The really stupid aspect of this is some school official here in Mayberry, acting in conjunction with the local Barney Fife brigade, actually think that using the legal system to overcharge a student to "send a message" actually has power to tame the trend of false parody account creation that is all the rage on the internet.
Facebook claims it has 1 billion users, but most people on Facebook admit to having more than one account, some even more than 2 accounts. Some families have accounts for their family members and pets, with the pet accounts often used as a "front" to screen prospects before users add others to their membership circle. In reality, the real Facebook membership tally is about one third of that, around 300-400 million. Does Barney Fife have a jail big enough to hold all of these false identity offenders?
The Times News ran a story in the paper today that the po-po is investigating yet another false parody account for this same school official that had been created on twitter.
You go, Barney Fife, and dream that you and your local law book actually has power over the global Twitter and Facebook universe. Something tells me, more parody accounts for this local school official will be found, and the local idgits will finally learn that they don't have the power to shape the future that they think they do when it comes to this newfangled "series of tubes".
Nothing amuses the world more than locals who are behind the 8-ball when it comes to world trends and who use the legal system in an abusive way to respond to being the butt of a non-criminal prank.
#2 Jan 27, 2013
Of course it is you twit. You obviously have a connection to this kid or you'd be seeing the obvious. He created an account using someone else's name and photo so yes, it is identity theft.
#3 Jan 27, 2013
What he did is IMPERSONATION, not Identity theft.
Identity theft involves taking that identity and using it in a criminal manner, like signing up for a drivers license in another person's name, or pretending to be another person to BUY GOODS ONLINE and use that other person's credit data.
This case is no such thing.
He impersonated someone, just like any mainstream comedian might do. And because its not a crime to do impersonate others, its easy to understand the parody accounts on Twitter today. They aren't a crime, either.
Barney Fife is doing the equivalent of charging Tina Fey on a felony charge for her impersonation of Sarah Palin on a TV show simply because Sarah Palin didn't like the way she was portrayed.
#4 Jan 27, 2013
Wrong. If he put on a wig and acted like this person he would be performing a simple impersonation. The fact that he created an account, stole a photo of the individual and then posted online constitutes identity theft. No matter if he was looking for financial gain or not he still stole the persons identity.
The real lesson to be learned here is to stay away from such stupid fcking haircuts. What a douchy looking feggot he is.
#5 Jan 29, 2013
The photo is the equivalent of the wig.
His possession of the photo makes it no more stolen than being in possession of a wig makes the wig stolen.
Since: Jun 12
#6 Jan 31, 2013
identity theft includes getting that identification and using it in a legal way, like deciding upon up for a motorists certificate in another individuals name, or acting to be another individual to BUY GOODS ONLINE and use that other individuals credit score information.
This situation is no such thing.
#7 Jan 31, 2013
This is not identity theft. There is no "mens rea", no attempt to profit, no real harm done to the school director or to society. The police and the prosecution are overreaching. At most, this kid violated the twitter "terms of service", and per US v. Drew that is simply not a crime. Also, "click through" terms of service and EULAs in general have not been properly tested in the courts, and therefore may not be a valid contract in any case.
There was no intent to defraud or commit a criminal act. At MOST, this kid might be accused of attempting to libel the director, but that is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Also the director is a public figure, so good luck with that.
The intent of the law is to serve society, not further the careers of policemen and politicians, and not to blindly follow the law because "the law is the law". The prosecution has the discretion to dismiss this case - regardless of the letter of the law - and if society is not being served and they do not dismiss it, they can be held responsible for prosecutorial overreach.
Add your comments below
|age discrimination||8 hr||Truth||4|
|Big family yard sale!||10 hr||Brandy||2|
|heather hatley smith (May '10)||11 hr||Clyde||41|
|thomas fannin||12 hr||Mental Floss||7|
|B palmer||13 hr||Old school||10|
|Trevor Parson and Ashley Shrader||14 hr||Raven||6|
|Where's Donna T??????||20 hr||Bull Crap||37|
Find what you want!
Search Rogersville Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC