Online dating impersonation

California’s E-personation Statute Other states have taken a different approach to e-personation. by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars (

California’s E-personation Statute Other states have taken a different approach to e-personation. by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.In January 2011, for example, California passed a new law, Senate Bill 1411, which states: Any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable . In addition, victims may seek civil remedies in the form of compensatory damages and injunctive or equitable relief.

||

California’s E-personation Statute Other states have taken a different approach to e-personation. by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

In January 2011, for example, California passed a new law, Senate Bill 1411, which states: Any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable . In addition, victims may seek civil remedies in the form of compensatory damages and injunctive or equitable relief.

(However, whether this case should proceed in criminal court, rather than as a civil case, is a different issue).

I will contrast the New Jersey court’s approach with that of California—where the legislature has enacted a new statute focused exclusively on online e-personation.

The case made national news when Meier committed suicide after the imaginary Josh, who had earlier professed his love of Meier, seemingly turned against her, saying, “The world would be a better place without you.” Drew was indicted under a federal computer fraud statute, with charges of accessing computers without authorization to inflict emotional harm, and misdemeanor charges of accessing computers without authorization. The controversial prosecution was criticized for invoking a computer hacking statute to deal with e-personation.

In other instances, a person might create a fake online profile of the targeted person in order to damage his or her reputation.

Calling the comments that Thornton allegedly posted about the detective “horrendous,” the judge noted that while the current law does not specifically address electronic communications, it clearly applies to a broad spectrum of impersonation techniques.

Reportedly, the New Jersey legislature now intends to amend its identify theft statute to further clarify that it does, indeed, apply to electronic communications.

,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.In January 2011, for example, California passed a new law, Senate Bill 1411, which states: Any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable . In addition, victims may seek civil remedies in the form of compensatory damages and injunctive or equitable relief.

online dating impersonation-35online dating impersonation-89online dating impersonation-50online dating impersonation-34

The statute under which the perpetrator was convicted—a regular identify theft statute—prohibits “willfully obtain[ing] personal identifying information and us[ing] that information for any unlawful purpose.” The teen defendant claimed that the legislature had intended the “unlawful purpose” language to refer to crimes, not civil torts.Notably, too, In September, a California appellate court upheld a teen’s felony conviction for accessing a teen girl’s account, altering her profile and posting obscene messages and comments on her page and on the pages of others, while masquerading as his victim.The boy was one of several recipients of an unsolicited text message providing the password to the victim’s email account.Jilted boyfriends or girlfriends, for example, might create profiles of their exes on dating or social networking sites and then, pretending to be the ex, post remarks or photos that portray the ex in a bad light.For example, just this month, a Morris County, New Jersey judge ruled that a case would proceed to trial, based on 41-year-old Dana Thornton’s alleged creation of a fake Facebook profile about her ex-boyfriend, a police detective.

Leave a Reply