Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act - Felonies and Misdemeanors

The words "computer crime" generally conjures one of two ideas: high-tech espionage or child pornography. However, in Oklahoma these take on a much broader approach. From online solicitation of a minor and other internet sex crimes to hacking and fraud, these crimes in Oklahoma are clearly defined by the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act (21 O.S. 1951 et. seq.). Section 1953 of the Oklahoma Statutes deems the following to be criminal offenses: (partial list)

1. Willfully, and without authorization, gain or attempt to gain access to and damage, modify, alter, delete, destroy, copy, make use of, disclose or take possession of a computer, network or any other property;

2. Use a computer or any other property as defined for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud, deceive, extort or for the purpose of controlling or obtaining money, property, services or other thing of value by means of a false or fraudulent pretense or representation;

3. Willfully exceed the limits of authorization and damage, modify, alter, destroy, copy, delete, disclose or take possession of a computer, computer system, computer network or any other property;

4. Willfully and without authorization, gain or attempt to gain access to a computer, computer system, computer network or any other property;

Under the Oklahoma law, some of these crimes are misdemeanor offenses, but most of the offenses are felonies. Misdemeanors include:

• Accessing a computer or network without authorization
• Using or allowing the use of a computer service without authorization
• Using a computer, computer system, or computer network to abuse, threaten, or harass another individual

The six remaining crimes are felonies. Some specific examples of CPU crime include internet fraud; computer sexual exploitation; copyright piracy (illegally downloading music, for example); hacking; and development and distribution of viruses, worms, bots, spyware, and malware.

Along with the increasing access to computers and the internet comes increased responsibility for ethical use of technology. By abusing the privileges of technology through internet sex crimes and other computer crimes, one risks the consequences of conviction. Conviction of a misdemeanor computer crime in Oklahoma is can result in a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail and up to $5,000 in fines. Oklahoma computer crime felonies are punishable by fines of $5,000 to $100,000 and a maximum prison sentence of ten years. Additionally those convicted are also subject to civil lawsuits as well as criminal charges.

For more information please see this site Oklahoma computer crimes defense lawyer

YtV Archive Video Number 2 - yTv & Irish282

A classic YtV video from the archives, this is the second banhammer video. ===================================== Some active Yahweh Clan members: SubsevenRising TheBeeOBee rapist187 xNoNameForThisKattx W347H3RM4N NOTLLMTE Idyllicsun metalflakes FUBUXGEAR longdongil TheRJCarter TheLordJehovah FSHKT Current Yahweh Clan Sympathizers and supporters: TheMaskedAnalyst KidToucher282 BraveLittleCockling lolwutdahell ClaudesBrownRing LordUilesnor CrueITube YahwehMossad BinLadenBunny JosefMengeIe JewganSpermkatt2 ===================================== Report abuse, don't ignore it. To report abuse on YouTube: www.youtube.com Inform the police of serious threats and stalking. If you are a minor, tell your parents. ===================================== Other Resources: Here is a direct link to a Wired Safety form for reporting cyberstalking and harassment. You will need a copy of a police report before they will help you. www.wiredsafety.org "You must contact law enforcement in your area prior to our accepting any case for any cybercrime that involves any offline risk. This includes death threats, child abductions, and Internet predators..." ===================================== GetNetWise is a public service brought by a wide range of Internet industry corporations and public interest organizations in order to inform people about the use of Internet. kids.getnetwise.org The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A US government law enforcement agency, part of the Department of ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j7Iy6Ymp3w&hl=en

Sexual Harassment Training - Protect Your Business

Lawsuits can be a profit killer for any business. Defamation of the business when these lawsuits are publicized can prove to be even more of a challenge. Worse than that is the actual consequence of getting charged with sexual harassment since it is a part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Any business that employs more than 15 people is required to undergo sexual harassment training according to the act. However, it's not a bad idea for small businesses, either.

Sexual harassment is a term that refers to any unwanted sexual advances, contact, verbal or physical acts that are sexual in nature, seeking sexual factors, or the interference of sexuality in the workplace in any shape or form that affects performance. This is considered a form of sexual discrimination, and is legally unwelcome in the workplace. The businesses affected by the Civil Rights Act that are required to enforce the policies and provide proper training are all local, state, and federal organizations, as well as private companies and corporations. After all, creating an environment where people can work comfortably and perform their best is essential for success in any business.

There are many different programs out there for those who are looking to implement sexual harassment training into their business or workplace. Choosing the right program involves finding one that can offer initial training and continuing support for your business, so that you can keep up on all things related to the sexual harassment training world as they come up. Continuing education is essential in such areas, because laws are always being revised, added to, and changed, and the environment of the workplace is constantly evolving.

The biggest thing to note with sexual harassment training is that it should not be downplayed when it is presented to women. People generally think of women as the victims in nearly every situation, but this is far from the reality of the situation. Women can be the harassers just as well as men can, if not better. They just tend to get away with it more often because men stereotypically don't want to admit that they have been being victimized or harassed by a woman. A change in attitudes with more women working their way up the corporate ladder is necessary. People need to realize that anyone can be a victim, and that women are not the only ones out there. With proper sexual harassment training, the workplace can become a more enjoyable and productive place for everyone.

Proper sexual harassment training from 360training.com can not only make your workplace a more enjoyable and productive place but also guard your business against lawsuits with the convenience of online sexual harassment training courses.

Internet Defamation Lawyer: How Long Can You Wait To File A Claim For Libel?

Internet Defamation Lawyer Adrianos Facchetti describes generally the statute of limitations in California for a claim of libel.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXAhhBVdih4&hl=en

Defamation Law Part II - Successful Strategies to Deal With Online Defamation - February 2009

Although it is difficult to get a successful result in an online defamation issue, it can be done by carefully establishing who is making the comment, and where they are based. Other important considerations are how damaging the comments are and whether threats might drive the defamer to make further comments. Litigation and threats of litigation are not always the best way forwards but they can be a useful tool. The Facebook case illustrates one such instance where litigation was used to stop defamation on a social networking site.

The Facebook case: A modern take on defamation

Many web users have a false belief that they can say anything they want on the internet and not be held responsible. The courts are finding otherwise. In the most recent English case, Applause Store Productions Ltd v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB) (QBD), a man was held liable for comments made on Facebook. Although the limits of defamation law were hardly stretched in this case, it is interesting to see how the court responded.

The case involved Mathew Firsht, the owner of Applause productions, a well known company which provides audiences for television shows. He did not have a Facebook account. In June 2007 a fake profile was placed up on Facebook in an account using Mr. Firsht's name. This featured extensive personal information about him including his sexual orientation, political views, religious beliefs and a picture - supposedly of Mr. Firsht - but which was actually a copy of the profile picture from his twin brother's Facebook page. The profile also included a link to a Facebook Group called 'Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?' In this case there was no dispute about whether the material was defamatory but only over whom had put up the profile and the group.

The defendant, a Mr. Raphael who had been a friend of Mr. Firsht and also knew him professionally, had his identity revealed after Firsht's lawyers sent a take down notice to Facebook and obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order against Facebook. The order required Facebook to disclose not only the registration data but also details of the IP addresses and email addresses which created the profile.

The profile had in fact been created by someone at Mr. Raphael's IP address. After the profile was created all relevant activity which occurred on the fake account continued to come from Mr. Raphael's IP address. The same IP address was also used during this time to login into two other Facebook accounts: Mr. Raphael's account and Mr. Raphael's girlfriend's account. The fake account had only been signed into from two different computers at the IP address which included Mr. Raphael's computer and his girlfriend's laptop which he admitted he often used. The facts about the IP address and login details were not refuted by Mr. Raphael.

The case gets even stranger. Mr. Raphael's defence was that he did not create the profile and that the evening the profile was created he and his girlfriend had met a group of strangers at a bar who then returned home with them and spent the night. He said that one of them must have created the profile from his computer. He did not give an explanation of how someone else had been logging into the account from his IP address on the subsequent times the account had been accessed which would have been after the fake profile creating stranger left his home. He instead choose to defend himself by relying on alibi evidence that he had not been at home on the other occasions when the Facebook profile had been accessed so it had to have been someone else.

The judge did not believe his story at all (rightly so) and decided that Mr. Raphael had in fact been the one to put up the false profile as well as the defamatory group. Although the profile was not visible for a considerable length of time, 16-17 days, the judge ruled that due to the popularity and nature of Facebook, which targeted the material towards people who knew Mr. Firsht, the materials were particularly damaging. The Judge also ruled that the allegations of dishonesty were serious enough to harm Mr. Firsht's business so allocated the award with £15,000 to Mr. Firsht personally, £5,000 to his business and an extra £2,000 for breach of his privacy. In this case, Mr. Raphael learned to his chagrin that comments made online can be costly and that lawyers can often get around the anonymity problem with IP addresses identifying computers not users.

Liability of Internet Service Providers

The other point to bear in mind when discussing defamation on the internet is that in some jurisdictions, including England, Internet Service Providers can have liability for content on the sites they host. They can be liable even if they were merely passively hosting the site unless they take down the objectionable material when they receive notice of it. The famous case on this point in England is Godfrey v. Demon. In that case, an unknown person purporting to be Godfrey put up a comment on Demon's server. The statement was defamatory. The real Mr. Godfrey asked to have it removed telling Demon that it was fraudulent. When Demon failed to remove the post Godfrey sued for defamation and won. This case established the importance of ISPs treating complaints seriously and investigating and taking down any content that can be considered defamatory.

Since this case, the E-commerce directive has come into effect which also has ramifications for when a host can be liable in defamation (or for other acts). ISPs are in a difficult position. On the one hand if they remove any content posted by their customers they could be in breach of their customers' contractual rights (unless their contracts expressly absolve them from liability in certain circumstances) On the other hand if they don't remove the content they could become personally liable for it to third parties.

Under the E-commerce Directive most ISPs will be viewed by the courts as a mere conduit and therefore not liable for the content, as long as they do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission and do not select or modify the information in the transmission. Nevertheless, ISPs will still have liability if they are notified of infringing material and then refuse to take it down, and there are those who believe their responsibilities should be broadened further.

The position in the USA

In the United States, ISPs are not liable for defamatory information but they are often joined as co-defendants in lawsuits with John Doe.? There is a purely practical reason for doing this. ISPs are becoming increasingly wary of divulging information about their users since it could be an invasion of privacy.

By joining the ISPs as defendants, once the lawsuit is initiated lawyers can make discovery demands of the ISP to get all of the relevant data which could help them trace the unidentified user who posted the comment. Once the user is identified the ISP is usually dropped from the lawsuit and the user remains the sole defendant.

These laws not only have ramifications for ISPs but for any company which has a forum or allows user generated content on their website. Many companies are not aware that they themselves can be found liable for defamation due to actions of employees or other third parties on these websites. In-house lawyers are becoming increasingly aware of the laws on defamation and privacy in order to take adequate steps to protect their employers.

What to do

If you find that you are the subject of a defamatory comment online there are a number of things that can be done. Clearly balance the seriousness of the comment with the costs associated with getting it taken down. The last resort option would involve going to court to get disclosure orders. Unless the comments are particularly grievous or widespread other avenues should be explored first.

If you are dealing with a hate site that uses a domain name similar to your company name there may be the possibility of trying to retrieve the domain name through a UDRP or other dispute resolution policy. However, this can be risky since at the moment it has not been decided whether these types of sites constitute fair use under the rules. The other problem with this method is that you may inflame the situation further. Also your efforts could be wasted if the site simply reappears on another non-infringing domain name.

Another option is to address the comment in the press or on your own website. Recently, in Israel, an anonymous internet user began a hate campaign against Israel's best known maker of dairy products. Defamatory comments were posted on a variety of websites and also sent around through emails. The company responded to the situation by posting comments on the website and also sending out their own emails via employees which defended their business. This approach has been successful as content is no longer being posted and the record has been set straight for anyone doing future web searches.

It should always be kept in mind that attacks are often short lived. Surprisingly the best option sometimes can be to deal with the situation by ignoring it, and possibly using SEO strategies to keep the site or the comment low down in the search results. The comment or website will often disappear since it takes a lot of energy to keep the site sufficiently prominent.

Shireen Smith is an intellectual property solicitor and technology lawyer at Azrights Solicitors providing advice on trademark registration, patents and domains and domain disputes.

View the original article along with others on trademarks, domains and other legal matters at http://www.ip-brands.com/content/news/articles.aspx

Commercial Law - Payment of Commission - Commercial Agency Regulations - Commercial Agent

The case of Heirs of Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone and Others (Case C-19/07) [2008], involved a determination on community laws relating to commercial agents. According to Article 7(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 86/653 (On the coordination of the laws of the member states relating to self-employed commercial agents) ("the Directive"):

"A commercial agent shall also be entitled to commission on transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract either where he was entrusted with a specific geographical area or group of customers... And where the transaction has been entered into with a customer belonging to that area or group...".

Article 10 provides as follows:

"(1) The commission shall become due as soon as and to the extent that one of the following circumstances obtains:

(a) the principal has executed the transaction; or the principal should, according to his agreement with the third party, have executed the transaction; or...

(c) the third party has executed the transaction.

(2) The commission shall become due at the latest when the third party has executed his part of the transaction or should have done so if the principal had executed his part of the transaction, as he should have".

In 1987, the first respondent in this case concluded an exclusive mandate with C. The applicants in this case were heirs to C's estate. The exclusive mandate concerned the first respondent's representation of C's subsidiaries, namely the second and third respondents, in their dealings with the importers, wholesalers and retailers of their goods in a specific geographical area.

Before the termination of that contract, C requested payment of various sums. Such sums included commissions relating to purchases made by two companies established in his geographical area.

The requests for payment were refused on the ground that the purchases concerned had been made from central buying officers or dealers in metropolitan France, an area outside the control of the respondents, and without any action on C's part.

C then brought an action concerning payment of commission.

The national court made a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The question concerned a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Directive. The question referred by the national court was as to whether Article 7(2) of the directive was to be interpreted as meaning that:

"A commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area was entitled to commission where a commercial transaction between a third party and a customer belonging to that area had been concluded without any action, either direct or indirect, on the principal's part".

It was held as follows:

The court was of the opinion that

· Article 7(2) of the Directive had to be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area did not have the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.

· Article 7(2) merely refers to any transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract. There is no requirement that those transactions had to be entered into with a customer belonging to a geographical area or a group of customers for whom the commercial agent was responsible.

· There is not an express requirement for action on the part of the principal, and there is no requirement for action on the part of the commercial agent.

· However, it should be noted that when considering Article 7(2) in conjunction with Article 10, the commercial agent's right to commission arises either:

§ when the principal has (or should have) carried out his obligation; or

§ when the third party to the agency contract, namely, the customer, has (or should have) carried out his obligation.

· The presence of the principal in the transactions for which the commercial agent could claim commission was indispensable. It therefore followed that the commercial agent could claim commission. The commercial agent's claim for commission could be made on the basis of a transaction only to the extent that the principal had acted, directly or indirectly, in the conclusion of that transaction.

· As a result, this meant that it was for the national court to establish:

"Whether or not the evidence before it, assessed in the light of the aim of protecting the commercial agent and of the obligation on the principal to act dutifully and in good faith, allowed it to establish the existence of such action, be that action of a legal nature".

© RT COOPERS, 2008. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

Full service commercial law firm based in the City of London specialising in commercial and corporate law, Corporate Finance, Commercial Lawyers, Commercial Law, Commercial Contracts, commercial solicitors, commercial law firm, corporate lawyers, corporate solicitors, corporate law firm, due diligence, mergers and acquisitions, management buy outs, white wash, sale of shares, sale of business, offshore companies, offshore transactions, white wash procedure, company law, law, legal, law firm, lawyers, solicitors, solicitors in wapping, Solicitors in Docklands, Solicitors in E1, distribution agreements, agency agreements, commercial contracts, shareholders agreement, companies act 2006, branding, terms and conditions, Internet law.

Please contact us for more information at enquiries@rtcoopers.com

Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_corporatecommercial.php

ADL Calls For "Major Law Enforcement Operaton" to Deal with Obamacare Critics 2/2

ADL Calls For Major Law Enforcement Operation To Deal With Obamacare Critics Paul Joseph Watson www.prisonplanet.com www.infowars.com Thursday, April 22, 2010 A major Anti-Defamation League report goes further than ever before in an effort to purge the Internet of all dissent, listing completely non-violent criticism of Obamacare posted on Internet forums as a reason to conduct a major law enforcement operation against opponents of big government and health care reform. The ADLs April 2010 report is entitled, Violent Voices: Anti-Government Extremism Takes on New Intensity, and consists largely of lists of comments culled from alternative news websites and forums, as well as Fox News. During the first few months of 2010, anti-government extremism has taken on a new level of intensity in the United States. The arrests of the Hutaree militia in Michigan illustrate this passion, which exists both within and outside the militia movement. Unfortunately, the Hutaree arrests may come to be seen not as the culmination, but rather as a first step in what may need to become a major national law enforcement operation, states the introduction (emphasis mine). Such words are chilling bearing in mind that the infamous MIAC report, which listed gun owners, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and people who fly US flags alongside neo-nazis and terrorists, was partly based on information provided to the Missouri Information Analysis Center by both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiizUUjUwr8&hl=en