6 ms·

when i was a kid, i thought the stuff about freedom in rhetoric about america was silly and nebulous, but as i get older it seems more true. don't get me wrong,

when i was a kid, i thought the stuff about freedom in rhetoric about america was silly and nebulous, but as i get older it seems more true. don't get me wrong, i hate the surveillance panopticon, drug war, and permanent security state as much as anyone else, but at least the government doesn't put you in jail for cheating at video games.

burtonator 8y ago
If this is a major issue why doesn't this fall under existing laws regarding fraud?
gammateam 8y ago
A) this is a fine B) you make an almost impossible comparison to get to the resolution of The freedom ideals in the US are part of a social contract that sometimes is reflected by judges to nullify laws that undermine that social contract, but the contract itself is part of a meme - like the pledge of allegiance - made for children in the 1940s to boost morale and national identity in a time where it made a real difference. The nuances of the 55+ sovereign institutions in the US can never be simplified that easily.
AlexCoventry 8y ago
They'll put you in jail for accessing a public url structure in an unintended manner, though, under the CFAA. To me that's a bigger deal.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  If you're referring to weev, this is not an accurate description of his case.
  - deft 8y ago
    What about the 19 yo arrested for accessing public URLs on a FOIA site in Nova Scotia? The case was dropped but he was still arrested. Happened earlier this year. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/police-drop-charges-in-nova-scotia-government-breach-1.4651543 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/police-drop-charg...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      That’s unfortunate, but it was under a different law in a different country. And yeah, he was released.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    I'd be grateful for corrections to any distortions or omissions in that description. I'd forgotten (or might not have heard at the time) that his conviction was subsequently vacated on appeal, but that was after he already spent over a year in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Conviction_overturned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Conviction_overturned
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      weev wasn't put in jail because he accessed a public url structure in an unintended manner. weev was put in jail because he wittingly conspired with others to steal AT&T customer data via a vulnerability on their website. In his correspondence with journalists and IRC logs surrounding the event he went out of his way to make abundantly clear that he was fully aware that this access was unauthorized. At the time, weev himself described his actions as "theft". You could sum a SQL injection attack down to "accessed a public url structure in an unintended manner", but that'd just be terribly dishonest.
      - AlexCoventry 8y ago
        You might want to tell that to the judge who overturned his conviction, and the esteemed lawyers who wrote amicus briefs for him. I agree there's a continuum from hitting URLs with predictable structures to blatant hostility like SQL injections, but the problem with the CFAA is that it doesn't draw a clear line on that continuum.
        ryanlol 8y ago
        The third circuit released weev due to improper venue choice, not because he didn't knowingly break the law. I'm not sure why the third circuit would be relevant at all in this conversation to be honest.
        AlexCoventry 8y ago
        Fair enough. I'm not really familiar with the appeal.
zik 8y ago
From where I live (not in the US) the US doesn't look particularly good as far as civil liberties go. Not that my country (Australia) is great either. We're just messed up in different ways.
- jordanthoms 8y ago
  At least they don't have an official censorship regime like we have in Australia and NZ. We're still banning books here... primitive.
  - Joakal 8y ago
    Thought you were referring to Australia's Internet censorship regime. They even (briefly) censored a Queensland dentist's website.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  we have extremely robust free speech rights, which in particular i'm very proud of
- int_19h 8y ago
  None of the countries look particularly good, because we're on a backwards trend globally. But US still looks better than pretty much everybody else.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    People who disagree with this should bear in mind the context from the parent comment - we're talking about civil rights specifically, not whether one country is better than another in general. I don't think there's much room for debate on whether US has the most expansive freedom of speech protections, for example. Many people would argue that it doesn't do a good job of balancing those rights with other matters of importance, but that is a different conversation.
  - lenkite 8y ago
    I don't understand why you are being down-voted. All over the world, governments are indeed slowly becoming nanny states for the 'good of the people'. In India, for example, they just blocked all pornographic sites. Stuff like this doesn't make world news. The US is better by a far margin that most nations since your rights are explicitly stated in your constitution.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
de_watcher 8y ago
Boosting in competitive online video games is like destroying public property for the personal gain. I don't see where the "stuff about freedom" comes in here.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  On the face of it, that seems like an absurd comparison. Can you expand on why getting a new account and playing from the lowest levels (with the knowledge you've gained) is akin to destroying public property?
  - question_me_not 8y ago
    There's a huge difference between SMURFING and BOOSTING. Smurfing is the act where you yourself create a new account, while boosting is the act of playing on someones account to make them seem better.
  - de_watcher 8y ago
    Random people matched into an even game - that has a value. People benefit, but it doesn't belong to anybody, it's public. Smurfing and boosting are kind of similar (boosting does twice as much damage: account goes up, then it falls down). Smurfing sometimes causes damage for fun, boosting causes damage for money. "Damage for fun" is relative. Maybe it is a part of the game. But "damage for money" means that it's an open system now, and some people have jobs to damage the matchmaking.

burtonator 8y ago

If this is a major issue why doesn't this fall under existing laws regarding fraud?

gammateam 8y ago

A) this is a fine B) you make an almost impossible comparison to get to the resolution of The freedom ideals in the US are part of a social contract that sometimes is reflected by judges to nullify laws that undermine that social contract, but the contract itself is part of a meme - like the pledge of allegiance - made for children in the 1940s to boost morale and national identity in a time where it made a real difference. The nuances of the 55+ sovereign institutions in the US can never be simplified that easily.

AlexCoventry 8y ago

They'll put you in jail for accessing a public url structure in an unintended manner, though, under the CFAA. To me that's a bigger deal.

ryanlol 8y ago
If you're referring to weev, this is not an accurate description of his case.
- deft 8y ago
  What about the 19 yo arrested for accessing public URLs on a FOIA site in Nova Scotia? The case was dropped but he was still arrested. Happened earlier this year. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/police-drop-charges-in-nova-scotia-government-breach-1.4651543 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/police-drop-charg...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    That’s unfortunate, but it was under a different law in a different country. And yeah, he was released.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  I'd be grateful for corrections to any distortions or omissions in that description. I'd forgotten (or might not have heard at the time) that his conviction was subsequently vacated on appeal, but that was after he already spent over a year in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Conviction_overturned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Conviction_overturned
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    weev wasn't put in jail because he accessed a public url structure in an unintended manner. weev was put in jail because he wittingly conspired with others to steal AT&T customer data via a vulnerability on their website. In his correspondence with journalists and IRC logs surrounding the event he went out of his way to make abundantly clear that he was fully aware that this access was unauthorized. At the time, weev himself described his actions as "theft". You could sum a SQL injection attack down to "accessed a public url structure in an unintended manner", but that'd just be terribly dishonest.
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      You might want to tell that to the judge who overturned his conviction, and the esteemed lawyers who wrote amicus briefs for him. I agree there's a continuum from hitting URLs with predictable structures to blatant hostility like SQL injections, but the problem with the CFAA is that it doesn't draw a clear line on that continuum.
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        The third circuit released weev due to improper venue choice, not because he didn't knowingly break the law. I'm not sure why the third circuit would be relevant at all in this conversation to be honest.
        AlexCoventry 8y ago
        Fair enough. I'm not really familiar with the appeal.

zik 8y ago

From where I live (not in the US) the US doesn't look particularly good as far as civil liberties go. Not that my country (Australia) is great either. We're just messed up in different ways.

jordanthoms 8y ago
At least they don't have an official censorship regime like we have in Australia and NZ. We're still banning books here... primitive.
- Joakal 8y ago
  Thought you were referring to Australia's Internet censorship regime. They even (briefly) censored a Queensland dentist's website.
nyolfen 8y ago
we have extremely robust free speech rights, which in particular i'm very proud of
int_19h 8y ago
None of the countries look particularly good, because we're on a backwards trend globally. But US still looks better than pretty much everybody else.
- int_19h 8y ago
  People who disagree with this should bear in mind the context from the parent comment - we're talking about civil rights specifically, not whether one country is better than another in general. I don't think there's much room for debate on whether US has the most expansive freedom of speech protections, for example. Many people would argue that it doesn't do a good job of balancing those rights with other matters of importance, but that is a different conversation.
- lenkite 8y ago
  I don't understand why you are being down-voted. All over the world, governments are indeed slowly becoming nanny states for the 'good of the people'. In India, for example, they just blocked all pornographic sites. Stuff like this doesn't make world news. The US is better by a far margin that most nations since your rights are explicitly stated in your constitution.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

de_watcher 8y ago

Boosting in competitive online video games is like destroying public property for the personal gain. I don't see where the "stuff about freedom" comes in here.

claudiawerner 8y ago
On the face of it, that seems like an absurd comparison. Can you expand on why getting a new account and playing from the lowest levels (with the knowledge you've gained) is akin to destroying public property?
- question_me_not 8y ago
  There's a huge difference between SMURFING and BOOSTING. Smurfing is the act where you yourself create a new account, while boosting is the act of playing on someones account to make them seem better.
- de_watcher 8y ago
  Random people matched into an even game - that has a value. People benefit, but it doesn't belong to anybody, it's public. Smurfing and boosting are kind of similar (boosting does twice as much damage: account goes up, then it falls down). Smurfing sometimes causes damage for fun, boosting causes damage for money. "Damage for fun" is relative. Maybe it is a part of the game. But "damage for money" means that it's an open system now, and some people have jobs to damage the matchmaking.