Tonight (or tomorrow morning) members look at Article 2, which criminalizes identity theft in the digital LOPPSI. The opportunity for us to discuss further about this article innocuous, but the consequences could be drastic.
So says the text discussed:
"The Penal Code is amended as follows: 1 °
Articles 222-16-1 and 222-16-2 become Articles 222-16-2 and 222-16-3;
2 ° Article 222-16-1 is thus restored:
"Art. 222-16-1. - The making of use, repeatedly, on an electronic communications network, the identity of a third party or data which are personal to him, for disturbing the peace that person or another person, is punishable by imprisonment for one year and 15 000 € fine.
"shall be punished in the same sentence does make use on a network of electronic communications, the identity of a third party or data which are personal to him, to damage his honor or consideration . ""
The central part is the 2 and its two paragraphs. An old idea
This criminalization has repeatedly been proposed to Parliament. It was proposed first in 2006 at the initiative of Senator of the Territory of Belfort Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt (since deceased) who regretted the lack of legal matter. Unsuccessful attempts repelled by the government explained that while our law was fairly complete as many offenses were applicable, as the crime of fraud.
Other parliamentarians did however argue that the current criminal law does not embrace all situations: in addition to the scam, it suppresses the case of using false identity in an authentic act or an administrative document, the fact use a false name to get establish a police record, or in cases where attempts to increase the flew for an offender or defamation. Clearly, only the consequences of identity theft were not sanctioned identity theft itself as in the example of phishing.
Text lame
text embedded in the LOPPSI however lame.
Paragraph 1, which represses the impersonation of any person to disturb his peace involves an act repeated (more than once, so).
Paragraph 2, which punishes violations of reputation through identity theft is satisfied with a single act.
1) As was requested by the web players gathered within the ASIC, which is the degree of approximation of the acts for which he believes is repeating? A blog post published in 2007 and another in 2009 they will be analyzed in an act repeated?
2) If you look carefully the text, we see that it punishes not only identity theft but more broadly, any use of any personal data of others in a way that disturbs his tranquility (al.1). Problem: disturbing the peace of a person on the internet can go very fast. As
ASIC also noted, the text could apply to simply "tag" someone on a picture on a social network without their consent, to criticize anyone on a blog (a lot of people lose their peace soon they read about non-complimentary), to criticize an artist, a personality, a person on a public forum, post a video of a chair in the living room of agriculture called "break up pauv'con, or made to post the details of a member on a site inviting citizens to contact him to express their opposition to a bill (if it follows a large number of calls that can affect the tranquility of the member).
theft of personal data, IP and HADOPI
Another thing: justice considers that the IP address is personal data. This article, we said, is theft of personal data. It could have effects of stroke in those who use false IP addresses for example following the vote HADOPI. These could be punished for 15 000 euro fine and a year in prison for that reason alone, the play of the offense of theft of personal data. One way to incriminate the slightest movements of users who would be motivated to some hacks on networks ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment