5 ms·

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?

by borism 16y ago

epochwolf 16y ago
I would be willing to bet the teenagers are either most of anonymous or anonymous's cannon fodder. I'm leaning towards the second because it's so much cooler. :)
tptacek 16y ago
What does being a teenager have to do with being liable? If they're criminally liable, they'll be tried by a juvenile court. If they're civilly liable, their parents will face civil suits.
- borism 16y ago
  oh, hello our friendly neighborhood cybercrime legal expert. If I have written: teenagers who most likely are not liable to the same extent as adults would it have satisfied your pedantry, or would you still argue to the contrary?
  - zacharycohn 16y ago
    You should say what you mean. "Not legally liable" is pretty clear and does not imply "to the same extent as adults."
    - borism 16y ago
      unlike others I don't pretend to be a legal expert, that's why I've written "most likely not even legally liable" in the first place. I think I've made it pretty clear with that sentence that I'm not sure, but I see it as highly unlikely that persons mentioned in the article will face any serious legal liability over their alleged actions. But let's wait for the court session (if there will be any), shall we?
- ugh 16y ago
  Are parents civilly liable in the US when their kids do something? That’s under most circumstances not the case in Germany. It is possible but the barriers are extremely high. A thirteen year-old downloading software off the internet and using it is age appropriate (i.e. it is not reasonable for parents of teenagers to check everything they are doing online), the parents would consequently not be civilly liable in Germany. (This is my personal extrapolation of the respective German laws. The case I know about is the following: Two twelve year-olds walk home unaccompanied from a nearby playground and decide on their way home to slash the tires of a neighbor’s car with a small swiss army knife one of the kids received as a present. The parents aren’t civilly liable in this case because it is age appropriate for twelve year-olds to walk to a nearby playground and back alone and it is also appropriate for one of the kids to own a small swiss army knife. There is nothing reasonable the parents could have done to directly prevent the incident.)
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The laws vary from state to state, but, generally, yes.
forensic 16y ago
Their goal is to deter the behaviour by making examples of out people. I think they achieved this.
- borism 16y ago
  usually making examples out of people implies naming them by name
  - wmf 16y ago
    They will be named if/when anything goes to trial.
kmfrk 16y ago
With it being Anonymous, I wouldn't be surprised that the main demographic were indeed teenagers. At least those of them who didn't cover their tracks.

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?

by borism 16y ago

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?

epochwolf 16y ago

I would be willing to bet the teenagers are either most of anonymous or anonymous's cannon fodder. I'm leaning towards the second because it's so much cooler. :)

tptacek 16y ago

What does being a teenager have to do with being liable? If they're criminally liable, they'll be tried by a juvenile court. If they're civilly liable, their parents will face civil suits.

borism 16y ago
oh, hello our friendly neighborhood cybercrime legal expert. If I have written: teenagers who most likely are not liable to the same extent as adults would it have satisfied your pedantry, or would you still argue to the contrary?
- zacharycohn 16y ago
  You should say what you mean. "Not legally liable" is pretty clear and does not imply "to the same extent as adults."
  - borism 16y ago
    unlike others I don't pretend to be a legal expert, that's why I've written "most likely not even legally liable" in the first place. I think I've made it pretty clear with that sentence that I'm not sure, but I see it as highly unlikely that persons mentioned in the article will face any serious legal liability over their alleged actions. But let's wait for the court session (if there will be any), shall we?
ugh 16y ago
Are parents civilly liable in the US when their kids do something? That’s under most circumstances not the case in Germany. It is possible but the barriers are extremely high. A thirteen year-old downloading software off the internet and using it is age appropriate (i.e. it is not reasonable for parents of teenagers to check everything they are doing online), the parents would consequently not be civilly liable in Germany. (This is my personal extrapolation of the respective German laws. The case I know about is the following: Two twelve year-olds walk home unaccompanied from a nearby playground and decide on their way home to slash the tires of a neighbor’s car with a small swiss army knife one of the kids received as a present. The parents aren’t civilly liable in this case because it is age appropriate for twelve year-olds to walk to a nearby playground and back alone and it is also appropriate for one of the kids to own a small swiss army knife. There is nothing reasonable the parents could have done to directly prevent the incident.)
- tptacek 16y ago
  The laws vary from state to state, but, generally, yes.

forensic 16y ago

Their goal is to deter the behaviour by making examples of out people. I think they achieved this.

borism 16y ago
usually making examples out of people implies naming them by name
- wmf 16y ago
  They will be named if/when anything goes to trial.

kmfrk 16y ago

With it being Anonymous, I wouldn't be surprised that the main demographic were indeed teenagers. At least those of them who didn't cover their tracks.