![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Someone is (legally) wrong on the Internet
Dec. 3rd, 2010 02:53 pmLifehacker is a moderately interesting tips website. It's a little trite for my liking in that some of the tips are blindingly obvious or just plain dumb, but there are occasional gems, so I tend to look at an RSS feed when I'm out of Internet browsing material.
This, however, crosses the line from dumb to criminal. It is an article telling you how to fake being a student to get student discounts, including how to fraudulently modify student ID. This is a problem for anyone following this advice in that should they be caught doing so, they may well face criminal prosecution for fraud. It's possible that such an act would be de minimis, or, in lay terms, too piffling for the law to worry about. However, I know of a person who was in fact prosecuted for using someone else's bus season ticket, convicted of fraud, and it may well have put paid to their desire to have a legal career as a result. So the "advice" contained is both bad and dangerous.
Lifehacker is an American website, but if it were authored and published in the UK, things would get more interesting. Under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, it is an offence to assist or encourage the commission of a criminal offence. In order to be guilty of a crime under English law, you must both perform the illegal act, and also (broadly speaking) intend to do so. Lawyers call these two things the actus reus and mens rea of a crime. The actus reus in this case would be performing an act capable of assisting in the commission of an offence. This is obviously a very broad net, which is why mens rea is required as well, but explaining how to fraudulently modify student ID is quite clearly capable of encouraging and assisting the commission of fraud.
With regard to intent, this must have been done either with the intention that it would assist or encourage fraud, or a belief that it would do so. The fact that the article is provided on a tips website demonstrates this quite nicely. With respect as to whether anyone did carry out the act, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the accused was reckless or intended as to whether or not they did. Again, telling the entire internet is a slam dunk as to recklessness. The final element of mens rea is to demonstrate, at minimum, recklessness as to whether or not those assisted or encouraged would intend to commit fraud. (Convoluted, eh?) Again the tone of the article indicates that the author feels this form of fraud is acceptable and wishes to facilitate it.
So what conclusions can be drawn? Anyone within the UK posting this or similar advice on the Internet risks a criminal conviction by so doing. This means both that one should be very careful when discussing illegal activity on the Internet (and remember, ripping MP3s from a CD is technically illegal in this country), and secondly that the rule in English law relating to assisting and encouraging crime is (a) too bloody complex and (b) too bloody wide. I would be greatly surprised if anyone reading this journal has not at some point assisted or encouraged a crime. It also demonstrates that Lifehacker should be more cautious. Even though assisting and encouraging is not criminal in the US (as far as I know), they may potentially be liable in tort to someone who suffers detriment as a result of following such advice. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but giving negligent advice may well be actionable.
So why did you all get the benefit of this egregious expostulation? Lifehacker has moderated comments, and declined to publish my short "this is a silly idea, don't do it" comment.
It is a silly idea. Don't do it.
This, however, crosses the line from dumb to criminal. It is an article telling you how to fake being a student to get student discounts, including how to fraudulently modify student ID. This is a problem for anyone following this advice in that should they be caught doing so, they may well face criminal prosecution for fraud. It's possible that such an act would be de minimis, or, in lay terms, too piffling for the law to worry about. However, I know of a person who was in fact prosecuted for using someone else's bus season ticket, convicted of fraud, and it may well have put paid to their desire to have a legal career as a result. So the "advice" contained is both bad and dangerous.
Lifehacker is an American website, but if it were authored and published in the UK, things would get more interesting. Under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, it is an offence to assist or encourage the commission of a criminal offence. In order to be guilty of a crime under English law, you must both perform the illegal act, and also (broadly speaking) intend to do so. Lawyers call these two things the actus reus and mens rea of a crime. The actus reus in this case would be performing an act capable of assisting in the commission of an offence. This is obviously a very broad net, which is why mens rea is required as well, but explaining how to fraudulently modify student ID is quite clearly capable of encouraging and assisting the commission of fraud.
With regard to intent, this must have been done either with the intention that it would assist or encourage fraud, or a belief that it would do so. The fact that the article is provided on a tips website demonstrates this quite nicely. With respect as to whether anyone did carry out the act, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the accused was reckless or intended as to whether or not they did. Again, telling the entire internet is a slam dunk as to recklessness. The final element of mens rea is to demonstrate, at minimum, recklessness as to whether or not those assisted or encouraged would intend to commit fraud. (Convoluted, eh?) Again the tone of the article indicates that the author feels this form of fraud is acceptable and wishes to facilitate it.
So what conclusions can be drawn? Anyone within the UK posting this or similar advice on the Internet risks a criminal conviction by so doing. This means both that one should be very careful when discussing illegal activity on the Internet (and remember, ripping MP3s from a CD is technically illegal in this country), and secondly that the rule in English law relating to assisting and encouraging crime is (a) too bloody complex and (b) too bloody wide. I would be greatly surprised if anyone reading this journal has not at some point assisted or encouraged a crime. It also demonstrates that Lifehacker should be more cautious. Even though assisting and encouraging is not criminal in the US (as far as I know), they may potentially be liable in tort to someone who suffers detriment as a result of following such advice. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but giving negligent advice may well be actionable.
So why did you all get the benefit of this egregious expostulation? Lifehacker has moderated comments, and declined to publish my short "this is a silly idea, don't do it" comment.
It is a silly idea. Don't do it.
