5 ms·

Wouldn't it make it impossible under California law to have an agent that impersonate me? Have them tweet from my account, reply to emails in my name etc.

by wojt_eu 11y ago

robzyb 11y ago
It is, of course, perfectly legal to do that with permission. The problem here is that it was done without permission. The OP is claiming that the impersonation without permission is a crime, and that it is impossible to waive the crime-ness of it through a contract.
- OJFord 11y ago
  Parent is replying to a comment stating: > If an offence is criminal it can't be magically made OK > by a contract. I think this must be mistaken (IANAL either). Boxing, assisted suicide, and voting by proxy come to mind.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - svckr 11y ago
    The quote sounds right to me. If the act of impersonating someone is indeed a criminal offense, you can not smooth that over with a contract. Voting by proxy is not impersonation, you give someone the right to act (vote in this case) in your name. Thus, no criminal offense. The other cases: Assisted suicide is a criminal offense in many countries. For example (similar, but not the same), there has been some legal struggle over "Sterbehilfe" here in Germany which garnered quite some media attention. Boxing – I might be mistaken, but perhaps "beating someone" is not a criminal offense as long as it is not against the other persons will? All these things hinge on very subtle differences in wording. For example the terms might say: "AngelList reserves the right to send mails on your behalf" which grants them the right to send mails to third parties in your name, but I'd be surprised if law would allow them to state "AngelList reserves the right to claim your identity".
    - drdaeman 11y ago
      > If the act of impersonating someone is indeed a criminal offense, you can not smooth that over with a contract. IANAL, but it's like having sex: it's perfectly okay if all participants are consenting adults, but without this important condition it's a felony. From what I understand, the important part here is consent, and only lack of one makes it a criminal offense. I.e. the act of impersonating isn't a crime (on its own) - the act of doing so without consent is. Well, to be certain, I guess one should take penal code of the jurisdiction in question, find the article and check the exact wording used.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      Yes, I think the difference would be are they representing you or impersonating you. I.e. did the other party know. I can give my voting proxy or power of attorney to someone else, but it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that's what's going on. If the email said "This is AngelList on behalf of J. Random Employee" that would be different than sending an email that had every appearance of being from the employee. Even if this is allowed in their TOS, it's pretty underhanded if they buried something like that in boilerplate that they know nobody reads.
    - OJFord 11y ago
      > you give someone the right to act (vote in this case) in > your name. Thus, no criminal offense. Right, it would be an offence, except that you've given express permission; so it isn't. Assisted suicide is, yes. But my point is that we have separate legislation for it, implying that is required. Boxing, again, that's my point. Regarding identity specifically, what I imagine we're talking about here is an automated message much like LinkedIn's: > Hi, I'd like to add you to my network! * Do we have a problem with this too? * Or whatever it is. Point being, it says "I"; not "Mr Ford".
      - rspeer 11y ago
        I definitely have a problem with that. It's an abuse of e-mail to automatically impersonate someone, especially for a purpose as banal as expanding a social network. The Gmail warning that "this message may not be from who it claims to be" never worked well, but I wish they'd make it work for cases like this. It's too bad e-mail is so unverified and insecure. A smartphone app can be prevented from making calls or sending text messages from your number: all you have to do is deny it that permission. But there's no way to prevent a website that has your name and e-mail address from sending e-mails as you.
  - throwaway049 11y ago
    Are you saying assisted suicide is illegal, but _can_ be made OK by a contract? That's not the case in England. By contrast, proxy voting is fine if you register your proxy with the local electoral office in advance.
    - OJFord 11y ago
      No, I'm wondering why would there be a separate law if it was automatically covered by not being able to consent your way out of being murdered.
      - ams6110 11y ago
        Probably because it's not murder, it's suicide. Assisted suicide is generally not asking another person to kill you, it's asking another person to set up some situation so you can more easily kill yourself. And though suicide is illegal, such laws further define that assisting another person to commit suicide is also illegal.
  - huac 11y ago
    Contracts must have 'legality of object' - the 'thing' that is contracted cannot be criminal, tortious, or against the prevailing public policy. You will find that in each of your examples that there is a particular statute legalizing that activity in a particular state.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Boxing is not illegal. Boxing is regulated under certain conditions.
- abritishguy 11y ago
  Agreeing to the terms could be giving permission though...
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    That would be for a court to decide and I doubt that any of us are qualified to advise the GP (I certainly am not!).
    - morninj 11y ago
      There are lots of competent tech lawyers on HN.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
I have no idea. My post was more general and about principles rather than specifics. I have no knowledge of the specifics of the relevant terms of service for this company, I also don't know whether they form a binding contract in the relevant jurisdiction or what things are specifically legal to do in contracts in the relevant jurisdiction. I repeat that I am not a lawyer so if this is important to you then hire a lawyer in your local jurisdiction to advise you, don't listen to random people on the internet.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 11y ago
These are two different things: 1. Hi, my name is John, I am contacting you on behalf of wojt_eu to confirm that he has been added to the "Cool New Project" as lead DEV. 2. Hi, it's me wojt_eu, I just wanted you to confirm that I've been added to the "Cool New Project" as lead DEV. You can legally authorize someone to act on your behalf, in basically any Western Nation - although rules as to how this work will vary, but authorizing someone to impersonate you I don't believe would be made legal anywhere because impersonation is not just something one does on your behalf but also something one does to someone else. Both the person that acts on the impersonation as being real and the person being impersonated can be harmed by an impersonation, and therefore it is not adequate that the person being impersonated gives the impersonator the right to do so.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  You are not describing the facts on the ground. http://semanticcompositions.typepad.com/index/2004/03/flexible_design.html http://semanticcompositions.typepad.com/index/2004/03/flexib...
  - bryanrasmussen 11y ago
    no, I was very much describing the facts on the ground, I was not describing highly abstract semantic analysis that doesn't relate to legal usages. I was also not describing linguistic usage in telephone conversation, I was describing linguistic usage in email correspondence. I don't think a correspondence would exist with a structure similar to the conversation the blog post discusses. It can certainly be that when a conversation or correspondence moves into the realm of impersonation should be determined by the court. I think in the case under discussion here it would determined to be impersonation, the question then becomes what the harm was. Looking through the statute referenced http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=528-539 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... I don't think I can see a harm defined that matches what was done very well. I think the most relevant section is 530 and it does seem a stretch.
- bostonpete 11y ago
sqeaky 11y ago
I bet you can hire a tax preparer in California. That is someone hired to represent you and do things on your behalf for tax purposes. That is a highly regulated financial specialist though. In principle it sounds similar. The details do matter though. Did they provide reasonable explanation of what they were doing? Did they attempt to do this in secret? Did they misrepresent anything? Are they any laws saying a person cannot sign away liability for things like this?
- ams6110 11y ago
  They also don't sign the tax form as you. They sign it as a "preparered by" and you sign it as the taxpayer. Most tax preparers are liable for their own mistakes, but not for omitting anything you didn't tell them.

Wouldn't it make it impossible under California law to have an agent that impersonate me? Have them tweet from my account, reply to emails in my name etc.

by wojt_eu 11y ago

Wouldn't it make it impossible under California law to have an agent that impersonate me? Have them tweet from my account, reply to emails in my name etc.

robzyb 11y ago

It is, of course, perfectly legal to do that with permission. The problem here is that it was done without permission. The OP is claiming that the impersonation without permission is a crime, and that it is impossible to waive the crime-ness of it through a contract.

OJFord 11y ago
Parent is replying to a comment stating: > If an offence is criminal it can't be magically made OK > by a contract. I think this must be mistaken (IANAL either). Boxing, assisted suicide, and voting by proxy come to mind.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- svckr 11y ago
  The quote sounds right to me. If the act of impersonating someone is indeed a criminal offense, you can not smooth that over with a contract. Voting by proxy is not impersonation, you give someone the right to act (vote in this case) in your name. Thus, no criminal offense. The other cases: Assisted suicide is a criminal offense in many countries. For example (similar, but not the same), there has been some legal struggle over "Sterbehilfe" here in Germany which garnered quite some media attention. Boxing – I might be mistaken, but perhaps "beating someone" is not a criminal offense as long as it is not against the other persons will? All these things hinge on very subtle differences in wording. For example the terms might say: "AngelList reserves the right to send mails on your behalf" which grants them the right to send mails to third parties in your name, but I'd be surprised if law would allow them to state "AngelList reserves the right to claim your identity".
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    > If the act of impersonating someone is indeed a criminal offense, you can not smooth that over with a contract. IANAL, but it's like having sex: it's perfectly okay if all participants are consenting adults, but without this important condition it's a felony. From what I understand, the important part here is consent, and only lack of one makes it a criminal offense. I.e. the act of impersonating isn't a crime (on its own) - the act of doing so without consent is. Well, to be certain, I guess one should take penal code of the jurisdiction in question, find the article and check the exact wording used.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Yes, I think the difference would be are they representing you or impersonating you. I.e. did the other party know. I can give my voting proxy or power of attorney to someone else, but it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that's what's going on. If the email said "This is AngelList on behalf of J. Random Employee" that would be different than sending an email that had every appearance of being from the employee. Even if this is allowed in their TOS, it's pretty underhanded if they buried something like that in boilerplate that they know nobody reads.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    > you give someone the right to act (vote in this case) in > your name. Thus, no criminal offense. Right, it would be an offence, except that you've given express permission; so it isn't. Assisted suicide is, yes. But my point is that we have separate legislation for it, implying that is required. Boxing, again, that's my point. Regarding identity specifically, what I imagine we're talking about here is an automated message much like LinkedIn's: > Hi, I'd like to add you to my network! * Do we have a problem with this too? * Or whatever it is. Point being, it says "I"; not "Mr Ford".
    - rspeer 11y ago
      I definitely have a problem with that. It's an abuse of e-mail to automatically impersonate someone, especially for a purpose as banal as expanding a social network. The Gmail warning that "this message may not be from who it claims to be" never worked well, but I wish they'd make it work for cases like this. It's too bad e-mail is so unverified and insecure. A smartphone app can be prevented from making calls or sending text messages from your number: all you have to do is deny it that permission. But there's no way to prevent a website that has your name and e-mail address from sending e-mails as you.
- throwaway049 11y ago
  Are you saying assisted suicide is illegal, but _can_ be made OK by a contract? That's not the case in England. By contrast, proxy voting is fine if you register your proxy with the local electoral office in advance.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    No, I'm wondering why would there be a separate law if it was automatically covered by not being able to consent your way out of being murdered.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      Probably because it's not murder, it's suicide. Assisted suicide is generally not asking another person to kill you, it's asking another person to set up some situation so you can more easily kill yourself. And though suicide is illegal, such laws further define that assisting another person to commit suicide is also illegal.
- huac 11y ago
  Contracts must have 'legality of object' - the 'thing' that is contracted cannot be criminal, tortious, or against the prevailing public policy. You will find that in each of your examples that there is a particular statute legalizing that activity in a particular state.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Boxing is not illegal. Boxing is regulated under certain conditions.
abritishguy 11y ago
Agreeing to the terms could be giving permission though...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  That would be for a court to decide and I doubt that any of us are qualified to advise the GP (I certainly am not!).
  - morninj 11y ago
    There are lots of competent tech lawyers on HN.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

I have no idea. My post was more general and about principles rather than specifics. I have no knowledge of the specifics of the relevant terms of service for this company, I also don't know whether they form a binding contract in the relevant jurisdiction or what things are specifically legal to do in contracts in the relevant jurisdiction. I repeat that I am not a lawyer so if this is important to you then hire a lawyer in your local jurisdiction to advise you, don't listen to random people on the internet.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

bryanrasmussen 11y ago

These are two different things: 1. Hi, my name is John, I am contacting you on behalf of wojt_eu to confirm that he has been added to the "Cool New Project" as lead DEV. 2. Hi, it's me wojt_eu, I just wanted you to confirm that I've been added to the "Cool New Project" as lead DEV. You can legally authorize someone to act on your behalf, in basically any Western Nation - although rules as to how this work will vary, but authorizing someone to impersonate you I don't believe would be made legal anywhere because impersonation is not just something one does on your behalf but also something one does to someone else. Both the person that acts on the impersonation as being real and the person being impersonated can be harmed by an impersonation, and therefore it is not adequate that the person being impersonated gives the impersonator the right to do so.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
You are not describing the facts on the ground. http://semanticcompositions.typepad.com/index/2004/03/flexible_design.html http://semanticcompositions.typepad.com/index/2004/03/flexib...
- bryanrasmussen 11y ago
  no, I was very much describing the facts on the ground, I was not describing highly abstract semantic analysis that doesn't relate to legal usages. I was also not describing linguistic usage in telephone conversation, I was describing linguistic usage in email correspondence. I don't think a correspondence would exist with a structure similar to the conversation the blog post discusses. It can certainly be that when a conversation or correspondence moves into the realm of impersonation should be determined by the court. I think in the case under discussion here it would determined to be impersonation, the question then becomes what the harm was. Looking through the statute referenced http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=528-539 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... I don't think I can see a harm defined that matches what was done very well. I think the most relevant section is 530 and it does seem a stretch.
bostonpete 11y ago

sqeaky 11y ago

I bet you can hire a tax preparer in California. That is someone hired to represent you and do things on your behalf for tax purposes. That is a highly regulated financial specialist though. In principle it sounds similar. The details do matter though. Did they provide reasonable explanation of what they were doing? Did they attempt to do this in secret? Did they misrepresent anything? Are they any laws saying a person cannot sign away liability for things like this?

ams6110 11y ago
They also don't sign the tax form as you. They sign it as a "preparered by" and you sign it as the taxpayer. Most tax preparers are liable for their own mistakes, but not for omitting anything you didn't tell them.