UK Police Arrest Teen Over Call of Duty Hacking

[killamanhunter]

I don't see the reason for going that all out on a game... Just play the game and have fun, I do it all the time and thanks to my secret weapon I make sure I keep my servers inline.

 

[Hairetos]

Wait, he bought a DoS program?

He's an idiot, he deserves it.

 

[kouriichi]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im a pacifist.

No, you're not.

Why does everyone think pacifism means that i reject violance 100%?

"Non-aggression
In contrast to the nonviolence principle stands the non-aggression principle, which rejects the initiation of violence, but permits the use of violence for self-defense or delegated defense. Although people supporting the non-aggression principle often call themselves pacifists, but they are more properly described as voluntaryists. They claim that the moral prohibition of the use of violence follows from argumentation ethics, which only applies when people are using argumentation to solve disputes. So it does not apply when someone is subject to initiated violence, and hence self-defense is not morally rejected."

I can belive in violance aslong as i dont use it. If someone is ruining other peoples lifes ((FOR FUN might i add)) i haev the right to wish harm on them aslong as its the only solution to the problem.

Slapping somebody on the wrist and saying, "Dont do that", wont stop things like this from happening. Thus, the only way to stop this for good is violance. Show a-holes we arnt just going to let things like this go.

 

[karloss01]

best thing about it is that he paid for the program to cheat, got screwed twice there.

 

[milkkart]

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

I don't mean to derail but have you reported your neighbours? If you report someone for drugs offences keep a diary and evidence of wrongdoing for the police, drugs offenders are rarely just drugs offenders and the more info the police have the more likely they are to act.

OT: This is a good call on the police's part. As computers become more and more widespread the consequences for damaging a connection are going to become more and more serious.

what the fuck, where do you get your information from to make this assumption exactly? if you had said crack/heroin users are rarely just drug offenders you might have had some sort of truth to your statement but you're saying that just because someone smokes a joint they are highly likely to have commited or go on to commit some other crime?

It's called innocent until proven guilty.

Except we know the police traced an IP, that doesnt really lie.
We also know they know how the DOS program was obtained so either they found it on his computer or he confessed.

Either way guilt is certain in this case.

yeah IP's don't lie because wifi is completely uncrackable and only ever used by the person who pays for the connection and their immediate family and dynamic IP allocation doesn't exist.

afaik these hostboot programs generally have to be payed for (we're talking a COD playing skiddie i highly doubt he wrote this shit himself) so if he bought it and they have payment records linking him to it then that would be decent evidence, the IP is circumstantial at best (ok so im not totally clear on the definition of circumstantial evidnce but its weak evidence for sure and i really wanted to say that phrase). incidentally if they can get hold of whoevers making this shit advertising it as a hostbooter and running the server for it (for what i've seen that generally how these apps work) they should totally have them for it. writing a DoS program and putting up online is one thing specifically encouraging it to be used illegaling and then running a server to allow that and taking money for it is entirely another.

 

[katsumoto03]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im a pacifist.

No, you're not.

Why does everyone think pacifism means that i reject violance 100%?

"Non-aggression
In contrast to the nonviolence principle stands the non-aggression principle, which rejects the initiation of violence, but permits the use of violence for self-defense or delegated defense. Although people supporting the non-aggression principle often call themselves pacifists, but they are more properly described as voluntaryists. They claim that the moral prohibition of the use of violence follows from argumentation ethics, which only applies when people are using argumentation to solve disputes. So it does not apply when someone is subject to initiated violence, and hence self-defense is not morally rejected."

I can belive in violance aslong as i dont use it. If someone is ruining other peoples lifes ((FOR FUN might i add)) i haev the right to wish harm on them aslong as its the only solution to the problem.

Slapping somebody on the wrist and saying, "Dont do that", wont stop things like this from happening. Thus, the only way to stop this for good is violance. Show a-holes we arnt just going to let things like this go.

Violence is really, really not the way to solve this.

Also, there is a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.

 

[archvile93]

Let's hope he is innocent.

Why are so many people angry at you for this? Is it so wrong to believe in "Innocent until proven otherwise." ? Seriously, this is getting way too far unwarranted. I know Pirate Kitty has a strong belief in anti-piracy and that this has infuriated many of you, but are you people seriously just trying to take everything that she says and make a shitstorm out of it? Let up, Escapists. I used to think that we were better than this, but the quality of this forum is going drastically downhill.

OT: I'm with Pirate Kitty on this. Wait until his day in court is done.

I believe issue people have, and I'm not taking sides and agree that a court should decide his guilt or innocence, not a forum, is that it implies a willful bias, a desire to see someone as good so as to ignore evidence to the contrary. Many people I believe see this as a very naive and foolish way of thinking, that would allow many people clearly guilty of horrible times to walk free, kind of like a case I remember that ended on a hung jury, despite the defendants clear guilt. One juror found him charming enough, despite the obvious evidence of his guilt to the killings of several people, simply because she didn't want to see him executed (he was retried and convicted and sentenced to death anyway). I believe this is the main issue people take, not that they feel he doesn't deserve his day in court. This is my theory anyway.

OT: Well it's good to see these things aren't just being ignored.

 

[saruman31]

This is so fucking unbelievably stupid.

 

[kouriichi]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im a pacifist.

No, you're not.

Why does everyone think pacifism means that i reject violance 100%?

"Non-aggression
In contrast to the nonviolence principle stands the non-aggression principle, which rejects the initiation of violence, but permits the use of violence for self-defense or delegated defense. Although people supporting the non-aggression principle often call themselves pacifists, but they are more properly described as voluntaryists. They claim that the moral prohibition of the use of violence follows from argumentation ethics, which only applies when people are using argumentation to solve disputes. So it does not apply when someone is subject to initiated violence, and hence self-defense is not morally rejected."

I can belive in violance aslong as i dont use it. If someone is ruining other peoples lifes ((FOR FUN might i add)) i haev the right to wish harm on them aslong as its the only solution to the problem.

Slapping somebody on the wrist and saying, "Dont do that", wont stop things like this from happening. Thus, the only way to stop this for good is violance. Show a-holes we arnt just going to let things like this go.

Violence is really, really not the way to solve this.

Also, there is a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.

"Non-aggressive-ism" is part of pacifism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
Pacifism doesnt always mean, "No violance ever." It means, "I personally will never use violance, and will consider other solutions before using it."

And if violance isnt the answer, what is? We dont use violance to end drug trades. Look how great thats working. People have to know you arnt kidding around. If you put them in jail for 3 months, and slap a tiny fine on them, i doubt that means they will never do it again. And then what about everyone else how does things like this?

I considered all other alternitives before stating, "We should shoot them all in the face several times". Violance is the most effecient, safest one. Infact it would be helping our species as a whole. Were already starting to suffer from over popluation. Whats 1 out of 6.8 billion? Whats 100 out of 6.8 billion? Its not even a percentage. We as a race can afford to remove such stains upon our kind.

 

[comadorcrack]

I always assume innocence until their day in court is done with.

I was watching a documentary the other day, about the rape and murder of a child. The police arrested a group of men and the community went nuts; they made signs calling for their execution, rallied out front the police station with nooses - you name it. For weeks these men and their families were threatened and called rapists and murders. Know what happened? They were innocent.

We (my country) have the rule 'innocent until proven otherwise' for a reason. Hearing a bunch of evidence on the news or online is not tantamount to a fair trial.

Will be interesting to learn what goes down, eh?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I wasn't saying you were calling them guilty or anything. I was sort of just carrying on with what you were saying.

First things first, I just wanna giggle at your probation Post. Hahaha! That was possibly the funniest probation I ever did see (also totally unfounded tbh).

Secondly, yeah fair enough people on this site are a bit fascist at heart so I'm not surpirsed you got hate for assuming innocence. Still though nothing wrong with that, you should never be too eager to cast the first stone.

However, the courts in England work a little different with that principle, no ones ever found innocent over here. You're just not guilty. And most of the time you're not guilty because there's not enough reason to call you guilty. Just a little titbit of info for all parties.

Peace x

 

[Seneschal]

Isn't this completely insignificant and trivial? Who is the victim here, exactly? Some annoyed people playing stupid shooters online? The company that already got the players' money and isn't affected at all?

Okay, ban him from online, that's what he deserves. But using the police, who obviously have better things to do, to track down some kid with too much time on his hands? I swear, that damn Activision is run by a bond villain.

 

[katsumoto03]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im a pacifist.

No, you're not.

Why does everyone think pacifism means that i reject violance 100%?

"Non-aggression
In contrast to the nonviolence principle stands the non-aggression principle, which rejects the initiation of violence, but permits the use of violence for self-defense or delegated defense. Although people supporting the non-aggression principle often call themselves pacifists, but they are more properly described as voluntaryists. They claim that the moral prohibition of the use of violence follows from argumentation ethics, which only applies when people are using argumentation to solve disputes. So it does not apply when someone is subject to initiated violence, and hence self-defense is not morally rejected."

I can belive in violance aslong as i dont use it. If someone is ruining other peoples lifes ((FOR FUN might i add)) i haev the right to wish harm on them aslong as its the only solution to the problem.

Slapping somebody on the wrist and saying, "Dont do that", wont stop things like this from happening. Thus, the only way to stop this for good is violance. Show a-holes we arnt just going to let things like this go.

Violence is really, really not the way to solve this.

Also, there is a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.

"Non-aggressive-ism" is part of pacifism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
Pacifism doesnt always mean, "No violance ever." It means, "I personally will never use violance, and will consider other solutions before using it."

And if violance isnt the answer, what is? We dont use violance to end drug trades. Look how great thats working. People have to know you arnt kidding around. If you put them in jail for 3 months, and slap a tiny fine on them, i doubt that means they will never do it again. And then what about everyone else how does things like this?

I considered all other alternitives before stating, "We should shoot them all in the face several times". Violance is the most effecient, safest one. Infact it would be helping our species as a whole. Were already starting to suffer from over popluation. Whats 1 out of 6.8 billion? Whats 100 out of 6.8 billion? Its not even a percentage. We as a race can afford to remove such stains upon our kind.

Dude. It's just a guy hacking a shitty game. Violence isn't the answer here.

 

[kouriichi]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Im a pacifist.

No, you're not.

Why does everyone think pacifism means that i reject violance 100%?

"Non-aggression
In contrast to the nonviolence principle stands the non-aggression principle, which rejects the initiation of violence, but permits the use of violence for self-defense or delegated defense. Although people supporting the non-aggression principle often call themselves pacifists, but they are more properly described as voluntaryists. They claim that the moral prohibition of the use of violence follows from argumentation ethics, which only applies when people are using argumentation to solve disputes. So it does not apply when someone is subject to initiated violence, and hence self-defense is not morally rejected."

I can belive in violance aslong as i dont use it. If someone is ruining other peoples lifes ((FOR FUN might i add)) i haev the right to wish harm on them aslong as its the only solution to the problem.

Slapping somebody on the wrist and saying, "Dont do that", wont stop things like this from happening. Thus, the only way to stop this for good is violance. Show a-holes we arnt just going to let things like this go.

Violence is really, really not the way to solve this.

Also, there is a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.

"Non-aggressive-ism" is part of pacifism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
Pacifism doesnt always mean, "No violance ever." It means, "I personally will never use violance, and will consider other solutions before using it."

And if violance isnt the answer, what is? We dont use violance to end drug trades. Look how great thats working. People have to know you arnt kidding around. If you put them in jail for 3 months, and slap a tiny fine on them, i doubt that means they will never do it again. And then what about everyone else how does things like this?

I considered all other alternitives before stating, "We should shoot them all in the face several times". Violance is the most effecient, safest one. Infact it would be helping our species as a whole. Were already starting to suffer from over popluation. Whats 1 out of 6.8 billion? Whats 100 out of 6.8 billion? Its not even a percentage. We as a race can afford to remove such stains upon our kind.

Dude. It's just a guy hacking a shitty game. Violence isn't the answer here.

Then what is the answer? What we do right now doesnt work. So how do we end a-holes ruining other peoples times?

 

[kouriichi]

He should be marched out into the street and shot.

Shouldent have the right to live, let alone play a video game.

A**holes should die.

Rofl.

A pacifist, you are not.

"Non-aggressive-ism" is part of pacifism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
Pacifism doesnt always mean, "No violance ever." It means, "I personally will never use violance, and will consider other solutions before using it."

a pacifist, i are one.

 

[Dascylus]

Meh... Equivalent to, taking drugs to win at sports... actually in the realm of Tonya Harding here.
It IS just a game... but DoS attacks, taking drugs and clubbing your opponent in the knee are considered to be serious.
In this case it is not the motivation but the method.
And he's probably guilty and thought he was probably bragging about being a l33t hacker over the headset right up till the cops came knocking.
Then I guarantee he started crying... and don't tell me I'm mean for saying that... 17 year old getting arrested and trying to explain to his mum and dad... He cried.

In my personal opinion... He deserved it and we are all secretly glad for this little moment of justice.

 

[Flying Dagger]

So much for the right to a free and fair trial.
You people need to go and watch 12 angry men.

 

[Gasaraki]

Good, shitheads with DoS programs that they found on the internet are about the most annoying thing on xbox live.
"OMFG you beat me so I'm gonna mildly inconvenience you by disconnecting you from xbl for a couple of minutes by using this program I found on the internet! Aren't I so super l33t hax0rz?!"