4 ms·

Laws exist to deter people from doing things that are possible, so the fact that their system allowed him to do it is irrelevant. The quality of the troll is a

by philh 18y ago

Laws exist to deter people from doing things that are possible, so the fact that their system allowed him to do it is irrelevant. The quality of the troll is also irrelevant. The fact that you commit a crime really well doesn't make it any less illegal. That said, I'm not certain what he did should have been illegal. But I can't think of a single reason he shouldn't be sued. There's no way he didn't forsee loss of revenue for Amazon. If you deliberately cause harm to another person, even if you work out how to do it without technically breaking the law, they should absolutely be able to get their loss back from you.

Retric 18y ago
Posting a message that you got food poising from a local restaurant will cause them to lose money without you breaking the law. Would you say it's reasonable for them to sue you if you where telling the truth?
- stcredzero 18y ago
  It certainly would be reasonable for them to sue you if you had lied.
  - sho 18y ago
    Then we have fundamentally different opinions of what should and should not be legally actionable. How the hell should anyone be able to drag someone through the courts on the grounds that they might have lied about about feeling sick or not? And what could you possibly do when he just says "I did feel sick" - "no you didn't"? Yes I did, no you didn't? I don't think you've given much thought to the complexities here. Laws have to be workable and practical and err on the side of freedom of speech and action. Trying to legislate niceness and truthfulness is pure folly, especially considering the imbalance of power between a corporation (or restaurant!) and a person.
    - DeCarabas 18y ago
      Libel and Slander are well-established legal concepts that have been around for ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
      - Retric 18y ago
        Yes, yes, but the question assumed that the poster had told the truth. With a criminal complaint there is an assumption of innocence such that you have significant legal protections even if you fail to show up. With a civil suit no such evidence is required to file and if you fail to show up you the default is you lose without any party trying to defend you. I would suggest that a reasonable demonstration of evidence supporting the claim should be required before the other party is even notified and such a requirement have no impact on the actual case. Also a public defendant should be provided to defend you etc. Basically, a presumption of innocence until demonstrated otherwise.
        stcredzero 18y ago
        In the case discussed in the headline, the guy is admitting -- nay bragging -- that he deceived a number of parties on purpose.
acgourley 18y ago
How do you equate doing harm to another person with reducing revenue for a collection of entities (Amazon and its sellers)? Consider the small startup eating an established business's lunch; surely the startup isn't liable for the losses of the larger company.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Reducing income by out-competing another company in a transparent and open marketplace is one thing. Reducing income by manipulating information in a deceptive fashion (thereby making the marketplace less transparent) is another thing entirely. There were ways Weev could've made his hacking skill known without such negative impacts. He cared more about the notoriety than preventing harm to bystanders. (Though to be fair, he probably has rationalizations for why these weren't "real" negative impacts.)
  - acgourley 18y ago
    The post I was referring to said: "But I can't think of a single reason he shouldn't be sued. There's no way he didn't forsee loss of revenue for Amazon." I never said what he did was ethical, but I'm trying to say that just because an event reduces revenue doesn't mean its something that can be sued over. IANAL but it would have to be on the grounds of libel. (Which is likely, but parent never brought that up)

by philh 18y ago

Retric 18y ago

Posting a message that you got food poising from a local restaurant will cause them to lose money without you breaking the law. Would you say it's reasonable for them to sue you if you where telling the truth?

stcredzero 18y ago
It certainly would be reasonable for them to sue you if you had lied.
- sho 18y ago
  Then we have fundamentally different opinions of what should and should not be legally actionable. How the hell should anyone be able to drag someone through the courts on the grounds that they might have lied about about feeling sick or not? And what could you possibly do when he just says "I did feel sick" - "no you didn't"? Yes I did, no you didn't? I don't think you've given much thought to the complexities here. Laws have to be workable and practical and err on the side of freedom of speech and action. Trying to legislate niceness and truthfulness is pure folly, especially considering the imbalance of power between a corporation (or restaurant!) and a person.
  - DeCarabas 18y ago
    Libel and Slander are well-established legal concepts that have been around for ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
    - Retric 18y ago
      Yes, yes, but the question assumed that the poster had told the truth. With a criminal complaint there is an assumption of innocence such that you have significant legal protections even if you fail to show up. With a civil suit no such evidence is required to file and if you fail to show up you the default is you lose without any party trying to defend you. I would suggest that a reasonable demonstration of evidence supporting the claim should be required before the other party is even notified and such a requirement have no impact on the actual case. Also a public defendant should be provided to defend you etc. Basically, a presumption of innocence until demonstrated otherwise.
      - stcredzero 18y ago
        In the case discussed in the headline, the guy is admitting -- nay bragging -- that he deceived a number of parties on purpose.

acgourley 18y ago

How do you equate doing harm to another person with reducing revenue for a collection of entities (Amazon and its sellers)? Consider the small startup eating an established business's lunch; surely the startup isn't liable for the losses of the larger company.

stcredzero 18y ago
Reducing income by out-competing another company in a transparent and open marketplace is one thing. Reducing income by manipulating information in a deceptive fashion (thereby making the marketplace less transparent) is another thing entirely. There were ways Weev could've made his hacking skill known without such negative impacts. He cared more about the notoriety than preventing harm to bystanders. (Though to be fair, he probably has rationalizations for why these weren't "real" negative impacts.)
- acgourley 18y ago
  The post I was referring to said: "But I can't think of a single reason he shouldn't be sued. There's no way he didn't forsee loss of revenue for Amazon." I never said what he did was ethical, but I'm trying to say that just because an event reduces revenue doesn't mean its something that can be sued over. IANAL but it would have to be on the grounds of libel. (Which is likely, but parent never brought that up)