Is Zoe Quinn’s Crash Override Breaking the Law by Portraying “Expert” Status?
Crash Override, currently, represents itself as “experts” in terms of issues that fall into either the realm of psychology and/or social work licensing. Does this violate California statute, though? I can’t say, since this is most assuredly not my area of expertise. Also, I haven’t had time to thoroughly vet all the assertions made by @exposethebad1 because I’ve been busy with Trump and trolling Mitt Romney’s top strategist (which I’ll be talking about in the next post).
So I hope some of my more dedicated readers, as well as those from the community at large, will take a deeper look at this issue. I will follow-up with more thoughts from them and from myself later this week.
I want to give you a small update on a facet of what I am doing as it may aid you. While I will not, at this current time of course, divulge the actual targets of my current investigation I will tell you that one area is how Crash Override deals with potential “victims”. First off take a look at their statement (from their site) aimed at said victims of online harassment:
“… Referrals to specialists and partner organizations. We’re small, and volunteer-run. Some cases may require a particular expertise we don’t have on-staff, whether that be in a specialized area of online abuse or a professional relationship we do not provide. When possible, we refer clients to organizations that may best be able to help, whether those be partner organizations or lesser-known public resources”
As you can see they cite, on multiple occasions, their would be “partner” groups (very important data) which focus on specialized areas. I informed Ralph (last week) and, frankly, I am sure he already knew anyhow, it is illegal for someone to represent themselves as a professional (in this case – psychology, social work, etc). It is a fairly widely known fact that I have a legal background in terms of graduate schooling so I find this issue to be rather interesting because the individuals in question reside in the state of California and the state of CA refers to such issue as (Suggestion: compare such data with what they themselves state):
“SB 1411, Simitian. Impersonation: Internet.
Existing law makes it a crime to falsely impersonate another in
either his or her private or official capacity, as specified.
Existing law also makes it a crime to knowingly access and, without
permission, alter, damage, delete, destroy, or otherwise use any
data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to
devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or
extort, or wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data. For
a violation thereof, in addition to specified criminal penalties,
existing law authorizes an aggrieved party to bring a civil action
against the violator, as specified.
This bill would provide that any person who knowingly and without
consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an
Internet Web site or by other electronic means, as specified, for
purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another
person is guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would, in addition to
the specified criminal penalties, authorize a person who suffers
damage or loss to bring a civil action against any person who
violates that provision, as specified. Because the bill would create
a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.”
Here is the actual statute for you to inform yourself about if you so wish:
SECTION 1. Section 528.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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
pursuant to subdivision (d).
(b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if
another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe,
that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated.
(c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include
opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social
networking Internet Web site in another person’s name.
(d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable 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
(e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who
suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a)
may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory
damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to
paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision
(g) of Section 502.
(f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Now what does this mean in terms of the overall issue? In my view it means quite a bit. If you would like for me to explain all of this and how it connects in terms of their “partners, the non profit tag, and factually relevant connections and behaviors they have shown (ie: Harper’s admission, for example) I will, but I speculate you are seeing what I am getting at here.
So, to sum up, I personally believe (and my research has overwhelmingly shown to be true) that this issue is much deeper than it shows on the surface and includes multiple different groups sitting under the “non profit” tag and colluding on multiple layers. This, of course, includes the journalistic side of things.