UK Police Arrest Teen Over Call of Duty Hacking

[MasterChief892039]

I think it'd be sad for a kid to carry around a mark on his record for the rest of his life, even if it is a minor one, for cheating at a videogame. But at the same time I think he's a little shit for DDoSing people, so maybe a slap on the wrist would do him some good.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

At first I thought it was just aimbotting, and then I was like "Come on, don't you have bigger fish to fry?"
Then I realized they were DDoS attacks.

 

[Norix596]

Why would you do that? Go to all that trouble and violations just to win a game of CoD? wtf

 

[Treblaine]

Sorry escapist this seems to be poor journalism on your part for the misleading title.

He was arrested for Denial of Service attacks, not merely hacking the game as that has the implication it is just for cheating like installing an aim-bot algorithm.

As for the Manchester Met - you'd think with the amount of violent crimes that happen on a daily basis that they'd not have time to arrest some little oik cheating at games... Mind you, this is the Police Force that decided to post every call they got for 24 hours on Twitter, after all...

Oh haven't you figured out how policing works? OF COURSE they take these easy cases!

Tracking down murderers and rapists is HARD work, lots of investigation, so much red tape, not to mention the suspect is expecting you and is probably violent.

Far easier to knock on some young punk's door and arrest him, then trump it up as:

"WHoooA! We are so cutting edge, tough on cyber crime, we are Super Police, best in the world. More tax money please"

Even though Activision and ISPs did most of the hard work, they pretty much handed it to them.

Cash is too strapped and policing far too politicised for police to actual prioritises cases on importance, they have to consider easiness and publicity. I'm quite sure some paper like the Daily Mail will give a pro-police spin like:

"Hey old people, you know those Video Games you hate? Well turns out the people who play them are EEEEEVIL HACKERS! They're like terrorists who cause your computer to get slow. And Our Coppers done got'em! AH HA HA! GOTCHA! *Gloat* *Gloat*"

Well that would be a rough gist of the spin they could put on this.

 

[Normalgamer]

Let's hope he is innocent.

So pirating is a terrible offense but DDoSing someone isn't? Or maybe I'm reading your one sentence wrong.

OT: Good, no matter how much damage this kid caused he still was acting like a prick.

 

[samsonguy920]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im american. Im a pacifist. And every who knows me says im the nicest guy they know.
But anyone who ruins other peoples happy time ON PURPOSE shouldent have the right to live, let alone play a video game.

Im sorry if that comes off as mean, but im a bit old school on my feeling. A**holes should die, nice people should live, and everyone should know theyer place in the world. Mine is with the rest of the mindless drones at midlevel sales.

I am inclined to agree, but I would be satisfied with just marching him out on his own street, dragging every single bit of his electronic inventory and smashing them in front of his eyes. And then cutting every single utility service physically from his house except for water and sewage for a month.
Maybe cut those last two if he uses a friend's or neighbor's computer to continue his crap.

I dunno.... I think hed kill himself if you did that.
And that would send him to ((in religious belifes)) hell. I dont think thats for his best intrest. I mean, we dont want to doom his ((possibly non-existing)) soul for the rest of eternity do we?

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[Magnalian]

This pleases me.

 

[DataSnake]

Glad to see someone is being arrested for being a dick. More people should be arrested for being dicks. Sure, the prisons will be overflowing with them, but the rest of the world would be so much better.

Assuming "unoccupied" means the same thing as "better"...

 

[Dooly95]

There's been a lot of people going crazy and to extremes (I blame anonymity) and a few that try to pull everything back to reality. It's sad that the extremes won't read the grounding comments, and worse to see that there are some that support these extreme comments, but, hey. Internet - breeding ground for a-holes.

If the kid is found guilty, then yes, community service and/or fine should seem fair to me. There's also the fact that this goes on his permanent record, so he'll have this branding mark on him in the future. As for whether this whole affair (arrest + court instead of a slap on the wrist) was fair to him or not; the guy's 17. He should have enough common sense to know that doing something like that is bad and shouldn't do it. He probably didn't expect the police to show up in front of his door, but then again he shouldn't have been DDoS people in the first place.

 

[Normalgamer]

Let's hope he is innocent.

So pirating is a terrible offense but DDoSing someone isn't? Or maybe I'm reading your one sentence wrong.

OT: Good, no matter how much damage this kid caused he still was acting like a prick.

Yes. You are reading it wrong.

I want him to not have committed the crime.

That is what innocent means.

Good, I figured you meant innocent as in the court found him innocent. Apologies for assuming.

 

[Deleted]

Our work isn't done until every hacker is off the internet.

 

[Denamic]

Wait... so we still can't get people arrested for aimbotting?

Well, crap.

Seeing as there's an aimbot built into the game, that'd be bad for business.

 

[Dooly95]

You have to look at other countrys. Such as North Korea. While id hate to use such an example, i have to. Crime in Korea is almost non-existant. Murder almost never happens, drunk driving is a myth, and drugs are in control.

[citation required]

Or, a better way of putting that is;

Murder is almost never reported, drunk driving is a myth (to anyone that isn't involved, anyway) and drugs are in control (as far as you know).

Quite nice, having a dictatorship that can control all form of media. It means that all publicity is good publicity.

Oh, and I'd also like to mention that the majority of the people living in North Korea have basic needs they'd like to fulfil before moving on to stuff like drinking, drugs and murder and such.

 

[tigermilk]

Why can't the police come bust down the door of my druggie neighbors instead of messing with some kid cheating at video games.

Because a huge company like Activision isn't putting pressure on the police to arrest your drug using neighbours!

 

[1894]

I hope he is guilty, and gets punished hard.
Am I immoral now? Am I allowed to have my opinion about him, without getting called immoral? Because, if he is guilty, then if you have accused me being a immoral when I was right all along, that makes you immoral for saying that I am immoral. But if he is innocent then Indeed I was immoral.

No, it doesn't. I cut out stupid since that has nothing to do with anything and by focusing on the moral, we could define your immorality as you hoping he gets punished hard, before knowing whether he's guilty or not. I will answer the questions you asked, cutting out the unrelated provocative ones. Yes, you are being immoral by the previous set definition. You're allowed to have an opinion, but if you express it, you have to face the fact that people might disagree and have every bit as much right as you do to express it.
And now to the good part, your logical fallacy. No matter the outcome, no matter if he's guilty or not, you're still immoral for wanting him to suffer before knowing for certain. It doesn't make a difference if you're right or wrong, and it certainly doesn't make him immoral for calling you immoral. That part makes no sense. If he's innocent it doesn't make you any more immoral than if he's guilty.

So, it is not illogical to assume everyone is innocent?

Nice to see you took the bait of moral here.
There is no such thing as Immoral, since everyone got their own definition of Right and Wrong. You just want to force your idea of right and wrong to my way of thinking. Your definition of when someone is guilty and when he is not, is different to me. How I see it; Everyone is guilty of something that should be punished. You (I am guessing here): Everyone is innocent, no matter what they have done, long as they evidence of it doesn't happen to pop-up. ?

On the whole moral/immoral thing, I defined immoral, and by that definition you were. Discussing whether or not moral exists at all I'm afraid is a little far away from topic if you'd ask me. You're either missing my point or ignoring it, I can't decide which. It's exactly as illogical to assume someone is guilty as it is to assume they're innocent. Why not keep a neutral viewpoint until proof of either settles it? Being biased is seldom helpful.

 

[katsumoto03]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im a pacifist.

No, you're not.