Quilver wrote...
FunkySwerve wrote...
Quilver wrote...
Edited to add: If you have proof that he has hacked the server rather than exploited the game, then you aren't necessarily in the wrong. But if you don't have proof, you're actually breaking the law by accusing another of criminal activity.
No, he isn't. At most he might be civilly liable in tort, but even that is extremely unlikely, given the anonymous nature of the internet - to say nothing of jurisdictional problems. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Funky
I absolutely know what I'm talking about - I studied Law at University. Making public accusations of criminal activity when you do not have full evidence is one of the most stupid acts a person can commit.
Oooh, you studied law at a UNIVERSITY! Well then, you MUST be right.
I'm an attorney, having passed the bar in two states. I studied law at a LAW school. And I'm telling you you are 100% incorrect when you claim that someone is breaking the law by accusing someone of criminal activity. What you are very incompletely trying to describe is libel/slander, and that is NOT 'breaking the law'. You are making the common layman's mistake of confusing criminal liability with civil liability. Or, more succinctly, as I already said, you've no clue what you're talking about.
You're also wrong about DDoS...
A couple of you seem confused about this issue. DDoS is 'Distributed Denial of Service' attack. What this kid is doing is still a form of DoS attack, but not a DDoS. I am not sure why you have gotten confused over such a simple matter. There is no 'distributed' aspect to it if it is one person on one computer, on one connection.
*snip*
Oh, yes, clearly I'm the confused one.
'> I never claimed there was a 'distributed' aspect to an attack originating from a single person/computer/connection. That was another poster. I am not sure why you have gotten confused over such a simple matter.
'>
What I did say, and was again completely correct about, was that the activities you describe are in fact illegal, whether or not they are technically DDoS's. You will see this if you refer to the section of the Federal Code of Regulations I cited. Again, you are completely clueless as to the law. People have been prosecuted under 1030 for things as minor as accessing someone else's wireless router. Any computer connected to the internet is a 'protected computer'.
See, e.g.,
U.S. v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2007). Trotter was a disgruntled employee who accessed his former employer's computers, deleted a few files,shut down a system, and dropped a few obscenity-laced files. He was convicted, and his conviction was upheld on appeal.
See also U.S. v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2007) (university student convicted for hacking a university's network).
I'm just telling you so that you don't get all worked up trying to pursue this. The authorities have more important things to worry about, and this kid's ISP are unlikely to shut him down. Every ISP needs their customers, and they don't generally shut them out for exploiting a Dungeons & Dragons computer game.
Riiiight. So when you called out another poster for your imaginary understanding of libel as criminal, you thought that 'authorities' WOULD be interested in pursuing a CIVIL case for libel (itself a hopelessly ignorant notion), but you don't think that they have any interest in enforcing actual criminal statutes? Oh teh lulz.
*I* am just telling *you* this so that you and other people perusing this thread think twice before engaging in this type of activity. You can be prosecuted for it, and, if you manage to make an irritant of yourself wtih a server admin, they do have the recourse of going to the authorities, who are taking an increasing interest in this still-growing field of law. If you live in the US, and engage in this kind of behavior, you're playing with fire, as there aren't even any jurisdictional tangles to sort out, as the crimes are federal.
Funky
Modifié par FunkySwerve, 04 juin 2011 - 03:14 .
