A moral dilemna.

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:57 am UTC

I'm not sure if this is serious enough for SB, so I'll put it here.

Okay. So there's this site. It has a bunch of webcomics and stuff. They pay every month for hosting, it's not a cheap free one.

Suddenly, one day, it's deleted. The site is still there; there's just nothing in it. The site had been hacked. Every image, and all of the html coding, have been deleted. Luckily, all of the comics were still there on the owner's computers, but... they were still pissed. Also, the person who had already coded the site, had left some time ago. SO getting the site going again would be very difficult.

One of the hackers (Joe) contacted one of the owners on AIM. He was really shooken up, considering suicide. The hacker came forth and told everything that happened:

One of the hackers (Bill) got into the admin board on the forum, by breaking into an admin account. Apparently, some of the admins had been badmouthing him there for trying to spam another site. This made Joe mad.

Joe, Bill, and another guy named Dan got together and decided to hack the site itself. Dan knew how to hack sites well, so he just went in and deleted everything. Not a single file left. They were all in on it together.

Some members want to take legal action against these 3. Now, Joe and Bill are only 13-14. Dan is 17. They have all 3 of these guys IPs. If they took legal action against Joe and Bill, it could ruin their whole loves... but hacking is a crime, and they do deserve it. However, Joe and Bill are the small fish. They couldn't have done it really without Dan, and Dan's a lot older than them. One admin thinks that they should just contact their internet providers or whatever, but not actually sue.

TL;DR: Really young people did some hacking. Being taken to court could ruin their whole lives. But they destroyed a site that some very talented people put time, money and effort into.

Should they be sued?

And no, Joe Bill and Dan aren't their real usernames. >>

Avram
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:57 am UTC
Location: Edmonton

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Avram » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:07 am UTC

I don't know much about the legal system, but have you considered filing a lawsuit but settling out of court? Kind of like what the RIAA does.

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:08 am UTC

That could work, although it may just be easier to contact the parents without spending time and money on a laywer.

User avatar
Julie
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Julie » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:11 am UTC

I doubt any judge would go so far as to "ruin" their lives; if anything, it would probably give them a much-needed wakeup call.

User avatar
Yawgmoth
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:56 pm UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Yawgmoth » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:38 am UTC

To the full extent the law provides, that's what I'd do. That's a really shitty thing to do for an extremely retarded reason; show them what happens to worthless little shits like that. if they think that hacking and deleting a site is a proper response for getting told "hey, spamming is for jackasses, cut it out" then I'm sure they will agree that getting reamed by johnny law is an appropriate step up from there. Honestly, how is "I am doing something that pisses people off on a large scale and have been told that it is bad; I shall get my revenge!" even come close to remotely sane?

I don't think I'm being irrational by saying that these kids are sociopaths in the making if their actions and subsequent responses to the consequences aren't properly dealt with, and soon.

User avatar
Fossa
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:04 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Fossa » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:43 am UTC

Push for the death penalty.
Only half kidding...

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:45 am UTC

Yawgmoth wrote:To the full extent the law provides, that's what I'd do. That's a really shitty thing to do for an extremely retarded reason; show them what happens to worthless little shits like that. if they think that hacking and deleting a site is a proper response for getting told "hey, spamming is for jackasses, cut it out" then I'm sure they will agree that getting reamed by johnny law is an appropriate step up from there. Honestly, how is "I am doing something that pisses people off on a large scale and have been told that it is bad; I shall get my revenge!" even come close to remotely sane?

I don't think I'm being irrational by saying that these kids are sociopaths in the making if their actions and subsequent responses to the consequences aren't properly dealt with, and soon.

Joe actually feels remorse for his actions, and he never did any spamming, so he may not deserve quite as much. But yeah, that would apply to the other two especially.

@Julie: True. They probably wouldn't have the balls to do hand out real punishment.

@Fossa: Kira much?

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby EvanED » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:47 am UTC

N.K. wrote:Some members want to take legal action against these 3. Now, Joe and Bill are only 13-14. Dan is 17. They have all 3 of these guys IPs. If they took legal action against Joe and Bill, it could ruin their whole loves... but hacking is a crime, and they do deserve it. However, Joe and Bill are the small fish. They couldn't have done it really without Dan, and Dan's a lot older than them.

I'm not sure what you are saying because of this, but if this were to go to court, Dan is the only one who would likely face severe consequences. Joe and Bill would go to juvenile court, and their records would likely be sealed when they turn 18.

IANAL, so I could be wrong, but this is my impression of what would happen.

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:49 am UTC

EvanED wrote:
N.K. wrote:Some members want to take legal action against these 3. Now, Joe and Bill are only 13-14. Dan is 17. They have all 3 of these guys IPs. If they took legal action against Joe and Bill, it could ruin their whole loves... but hacking is a crime, and they do deserve it. However, Joe and Bill are the small fish. They couldn't have done it really without Dan, and Dan's a lot older than them.

I'm not sure what you are saying because of this, but if this were to go to court, Dan is the only one who would likely face severe consequences. Joe and Bill would go to juvenile court, and their records would likely be sealed when they turn 18.

IANAL, so I could be wrong, but this is my impression of what would happen.

But Dan is still under 18, so wouldn't he technically be in the juvenile courts too?

*Doesn't know these things.*

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby d3adf001 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:54 am UTC

good luck at proving it. i doubt that they deleted everything. also you should have backups. if you are lucky the hosting might keep 48hour backups

User avatar
Shizo
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:12 am UTC
Location: almost-Canada
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Shizo » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:00 am UTC

Find them and smash their kneecaps in.
Image

User avatar
Julie
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Julie » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:00 am UTC

A 17-year-old can be tried as either a juvenile or an adult, it all depends on how the court feels about the offense. For example, a 17-year-old who killed someone would probably be tried as an adult, whereas a 17-year-old who stole (from a store, not from an old lady or something) would likely be tried as a juvenile... I think.

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:51 am UTC

d3adf001 wrote:good luck at proving it. i doubt that they deleted everything. also you should have backups. if you are lucky the hosting might keep 48hour backups

We have a full confession from the one I mentioned, and his testimony says that the others were involved. So, may not be that hard.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby EvanED » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:52 am UTC

A confession over what, your AIM conversation?

User avatar
Shizo
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:12 am UTC
Location: almost-Canada
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Shizo » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:52 am UTC

KNEECAPS, BROKEN, ETC.
Image

User avatar
Rippy
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Can o' Duh

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Rippy » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:27 am UTC

Shizo wrote:Find them and smash their kneecaps in.

This is the most advisable course of action.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby EvanED » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:29 am UTC

Yes, advocating vigilante, illegal assault that could possibly leave them permanently affected because they deleted some files.

Sounds like a wise course of action to me.

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:34 am UTC

EvanED wrote:A confession over what, your AIM conversation?

AIM counts.

I have just had an AIM convo with Bill. According to him, it was mainly just Joe, and Bill and Dan didn't do as much. Contradicting testimonies.

We should have Dan's account of the story sometime tomorrow.

This is getting confusing.

At Shizo: How I wish. D:

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby d3adf001 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:38 am UTC

can i get 1 case where an aim convo held up in court where neither side were the authorities?

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:44 am UTC

Remember, of the two so far, each has made themselves out to be the good guy; the one that didn't do as much shit, and was really quite innocent, as opposed to the other two. They will acknowledge that they said what was in the convo, out of concern for themselves.

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Toeofdoom » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:45 am UTC

One of the hackers (Joe) contacted one of the owners on AIM. He was really shooken up, considering suicide. The hacker came forth and told everything that happened:


So... which one was considering suicide, the hacker, right?

That is a really shitty thing to do and they shouldn't get away with it, but if one of the hackers was considering suicide it would be important not to push him over the edge. The judge would take remorse into account when working out what to do and stuff anyway. Anyway, they should definitely take dan to court...
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
Fossa
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:04 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Fossa » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:53 am UTC

There's quite a few. The logs can be deemed admissible, it depends who presents them. There might be problems with presenting them though. Taken from commentary on a random case:

If a party were to bring a case to court, alleging wrongdoing because the defendant didn’t know the conversation was being recorded, the verdict could hinge on whether a judge thought instant messaging was similar to phone chat. In the United States, 12 states have laws requiring consent from both parties when recording a phone conversation. Federal law and the 38 other states require the consent of only one party when recording a phone conversation.

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:57 am UTC

Toeofdoom wrote:
One of the hackers (Joe) contacted one of the owners on AIM. He was really shooken up, considering suicide. The hacker came forth and told everything that happened:


So... which one was considering suicide, the hacker, right?

That is a really shitty thing to do and they shouldn't get away with it, but if one of the hackers was considering suicide it would be important not to push him over the edge. The judge would take remorse into account when working out what to do and stuff anyway. Anyway, they should definitely take dan to court...

Joe was considering suicide.

According to Bill:

Dan gave Bill a hacking program, for reasons unrelated to the website.

Bill "Accidentally," gave the password to the website to Joe. He had no idea that Joe would go ahead and bally well delete everything.

Joe went and bally well deleted everything.

According to Joe:

Dan gave the program to Joe and Bill.

Dan taught them how to use it.

Joe and Bill got the password for an admin's account on the forums.

Joe and Bill went into the admin only forum.

Bill saw them trash-talking him and went nuts, and found the site password in a topic in the admin forum.

Against Joe's warnings and advice, Bill went ahead and deleted the whole site. Dan advocated this, and egged Bill on.

Joe is very sad.

WELL AREN'T BILL AND JOE JUST CUTE AND INNOCENT

AT Fossa: Hmm... Well, in the convo, Bill gave me permission to give a copy of the convo to an admin at the site. And Joe said in the convo he had with an admin (The one where he fessed up) that he wanted the truth to be known.

So, I don't know.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby EvanED » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:00 am UTC

N.K. wrote:
EvanED wrote:A confession over what, your AIM conversation?

AIM counts.

I have just had an AIM convo with Bill. According to him, it was mainly just Joe, and Bill and Dan didn't do as much. Contradicting testimonies.

We should have Dan's account of the story sometime tomorrow.

This is getting confusing.

At Shizo: How I wish. D:

Okay, so now thing of everything that you'll have to do to establish the chain of evidence. What happens if the person you're talking to denies it? Can you establish that the conversation actually took place and wasn't forged? Can you establish that the person on the other end was who you say it is? Do you have corroborating evidence if they say they were just joking, and start to deny the whole thing?

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:02 am UTC

EvanED wrote:
N.K. wrote:
EvanED wrote:A confession over what, your AIM conversation?

AIM counts.

I have just had an AIM convo with Bill. According to him, it was mainly just Joe, and Bill and Dan didn't do as much. Contradicting testimonies.

We should have Dan's account of the story sometime tomorrow.

This is getting confusing.

At Shizo: How I wish. D:

Okay, so now thing of everything that you'll have to do to establish the chain of evidence. What happens if the person you're talking to denies it? Can you establish that the conversation actually took place and wasn't forged? Can you establish that the person on the other end was on the other end? Do you have corroborating evidence?

To be honest? No idea. I don't know how it would work out in court with the AIM testimonies.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby d3adf001 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:04 am UTC

edit since people cant deal with reality
Last edited by d3adf001 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:13 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby EvanED » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:06 am UTC

N.K. wrote:To be honest? No idea. I don't know how it would work out in court with the AIM testimonies.

In short: you would have an awfully hard time getting that admitted as evidence, and even if you did, the game isn't up.

(Note that IANAL, this is not legal advice, yadda yadda yadda.)

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby N.K. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:08 am UTC

EvanED wrote:
N.K. wrote:To be honest? No idea. I don't know how it would work out in court with the AIM testimonies.

In short: you would have an awfully hard time getting that admitted as evidence, and even if you did, the game isn't up.

(Note that IANAL, this is not legal advice, yadda yadda yadda.)

True.

However, it may be enough to convince their parents, and the parents could carry out discipline as needed.

Unless they're too biased to accept it.

EDIT: Update? One admin is going to report the hackers to their ISP providers... or something along those lines. It's not suing, but it's still going to be difficult.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: A moral dilemna.

Postby Akula » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:07 am UTC

They're under 18, it's not going to ruin their lives.

If anything the NSA will probably try to recruit them, and they can go into cushy government jobs when they grow up.
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests