Yes, Konrad, I actually knew that. It’s 14 for beer and wine, 18 for liquor, I believe. But it’s never enforced, so for all practical purposes, doesn’t exist.
Actually, that’s not quite the way it works. If the person committing the crime is committing it against a computer in Virginia, Virginia law claims jurisdiction.
As to a state prosecuting a crime… you got me curious. So I did a bit of research, and discovered State of Oregon v. Randall Schwartz.
Here’s a website devoted to the cause that Schwartz was unfairly convicted by Oregon. It has excellent descriptions of the case, the charges, the trial, and the aftermath. Interestingly, Oregon’s “Computer Crime” law is almost identical to Virginia’s “Computer Trespass” law, insofar as the “unauthorized use” portion goes.
http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/
Undoubtedly, you’re right in the vast majority of cases. As I said, in the case my office handled, the maximum penalty would have been a $250 fine. Hardly worth going in to court.
But take a look at the Schwartz case.
- Rick
According to the site:
That explains why you don’t heard about it.
As for the amount of damage, it’s not as much that she couldn’t be fined a lot of money it’s that a trial itself would cost too much. Judges, lawyers, computer experts, investigators… it would cost 10-30 thousand dollars for what’s basically the equivalent of a speeding ticket.
And yet, there’s a legal drinking age, correct?
Let me give you an example of, not selective enforcement, but I guess I’ll call it “enformcement of convenience:”
In Japan, where the drinking age, 20 years old, is also the age of majority, there are quite a number of vending machines which are stocked with beer, sake, and other alcoholic drinks. As nobody is checking identification cards, some of the US military stationed in Japan buy their booze there, if they are under 20 as the drinking age on base is the same. Now, if the military member gets apprehended for being disorderly (drunk & obnoxious) or for another crime (such as shoplifting or vandalism), then that member is charged by the Japanese authorities with both the crime for which originally apprehended and for drinking under age.
Guess I do agree with Konrad a bit. Gl0worm should at least be liable for the loss of income suffered by those who derive any income from the ads altered.
Monty: I didn’t say that.
Konrad,
Just our of curiosity – is there anything you’ve posted in this thread which you now would like to withdraw?
I just ask because you’ve made a number of assertions for which I’ve given counter-examples. Some may not have been particularly germane to the OP, but I have noticed that among your many skills, one of them isn’t gracefully saying, “OK, you’ve got a point.”
- Rick
No, not really. I’ve made a lot of generalizations to back up my point but that’s only because I didn’t want to waste a lot time explaining exactly what I mean. I don’t think I’ve made any assertions that are wrong. (Could you name anything specific?)
I know what you’re trying to say but the thing is I’m just focusing on one issue: whether or not a complaint about gloworm’s behaviour would be taken seriously. What I have said specifically applies to this issue. You have brought up points that I have ignored because they don’t affect the issue. That’s not because I don’t want to admit they disprove what I say but because I don’t think it’s important, no matter what it looks like I’m doing.
For example when I was talking about breaking past security even after you brought up the laws in Virginia I just ignored it until you specifically asked about it. Yes, technically if she lived in Virginia she could be prosecuted under that but I knew it wouldn’t happen so I just ignored it.
If I seem overconfident it’s because I’m speaking from experience. If someone tried to prove to you that gravity doesn’t exist you’d be pretty quick to dismiss their arguments wouldn’t you? Same thing for me. I know what usually happens in this kind of case so no matter what laws you find or what analogies you make I already know the end result is. Either way, do tell me what you think I have said that is illogical. I’m curious now.
I realize that, Konrad; but follow me here for a minute: I’m agreeing that perhaps “vandalism” isn’t the proper charge. You did say that, didn’t you?
A civil suit to recover lost revenue is a different matter.
Actually, you know what? I already hope you get cancer and die a slow painful death. But only after seeing each and every one of your relatives waste away from that flesh-eating disease.
Just in case there’s any doubt about how I feel about this.
**
[/QUOTE]
Now isn’t this reaction A BIT HARSH? You want the worm and his family to die because the worm screwed with someone’s ad? GIVE ME A BREAK! You need an anger management class, Manhandler…better yet, 20 years of intensive psychotherapy. Thank God all Moderators on the SDMB are not cut from YOUR cloth.
Stay tuned for a ride to Manny’s rescue from his pea brained protector, the lawyer Melin!
terggie
OK, fair enough. I think what some others on the thread (me, for instance) were trying to say was that it was possible, under extant state and federal laws, to punish someone for the type of conduct that gloworm did. Recognizing that the actual loss suffered by the Reader and the advertisers is (a) small, and (b) difficult to measure in any event, I don’t think this actual case would have been pursued. So we turn out to have been in agreement all along.
Well, what I was thinking of was the “computer trespass” business. But you address that here:
Right - and if the discussion is just focused on what the potential problems for gloworm were, then you’re right - Virginia law is completely irrelevant. But I kinda thought the discussion had moved on a bit, as discussions on this board are wont to do, to a more general talk about computer crime.
So when you said:
It’s pretty clear to me we were then talking about the hypothetical case of a guy in my office, in Virginia. After all, you say “this guy,” not “gloworm.”
But when I said: “But the crime of computer trespass…doesn’t say you have to break past security at all.”
You then said:
So you were moving the discussion back to the specific gloworm business, when we both had been talking about the hypothetical guy-in-my-office case. This is one place where I’m suggesting you might have inserted a, “OK, you may be right about how computer trespass is defined.”
I then posted two counter-examples: that Virginia claims jurisidction over a crime committed on a Virginia computer, even if the person who does it is outside Virginia, and that Oregon had gone after Randall Schwartz.
Again you drew the matter back to gloworm’s case, which I admit is very consistent with what you say above: that your entire focus was on realistic potential consequences for her. But in making your case, you did offer a lot of generalizations that weren’t entirely true, and when I offered counter-examples you never really acknowledged that your generalizations were flawed in some way.
Now, I agree wholehartedly that gloworm’s specific conduct would be very unlikely to merit any serious legal consequences.
BUT - as to the general case of intra- and interstate computer crime, there are potentially serious conseqeunces, state, federal, or both. Randall Schwartz’s defenders claim he was put in jail for a crime that didn’t really cause Intel any serious monetary damages, for example.
I guess what I’m looking for from you is some sort of acknowledgement that some of your generalizations weren’t completely bullet-proof.
- Rick
Right, but I still think that in the hypothetical case of erasing data he would be charged with breach of contract in a civil suit. Like I said before I don’t think it that would fall under unauthorized access. (For both federal law and the law you quoted you have to prove unauthorized access, right?) That part that I quoted from the site shows how rarely that tresspass law is used.
Sure. But when you’re arguing for the existance of gravity you kind of just throw out some arguments and hope the other guy figures out the reasoning. I wasn’t trying to build up a proof of why she couldn’t be charged as much as ridicule the idea that she would be. But, yes, you are right that there is a possibility that someone could be charged without actually damaging a site.
Hey Rick:
I was looking up a word in the dictionary and ran across your picture next to the word “persistent”!
I was rootin’ for you! You sure worked hard for that tepid acknowledgement.
(insert good-natured josh icon here…)
You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who can do nothing for them or to them. – Malcolm Forbes
Aw, shucks. Thanks. 
Actually, it was merely an effort to discern the reasoning supporting Konard’s pertinacious adherence to the points he was making - and as it happened, there was a good reason! Konrad was not focusing on anything other than his basic premise. He dismissed any other argument because it wasn’t germane to gloworm’s possible punishment.
Anyway, it was better than losing my temper as I did earlier in the thread, from which good seldom comes.
- Rick
I got this one covered, Melin :rolleyes:
Hey terggie, here’s a clue for you:
This IS the Pit, ya know? Flames are supposed to be over-the-top. Creativity improves your score. I gave Manny’s flame an 8.6.
Your flame, or should I say sputter, at Melin rates only a 0.8, tops.
Sue from El Paso
- Siamese attack puppet - Texas
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
Who rattled your cage, you MAJORMORONDIPSHIT. Your head is so far up Manhandler’s butt, you probably only see daylight when he farts in the shower. But then you’re from Texas so there isn’t much to see anyway.
Next time you brush your tooth make sure you also clean Mel’s shit out of your nostrils.
…ta da, a TEN on your creativity scale no doubt!
terggie
You dropped from 0.8 to 0.3, terggie.
But we do have a lovely set of steak knives for you as a consolation prize.
I don’t have to do drugs to mess up my head. I went to Catholic school.
0.5. Total lacking in creativity. Heads up butts are SOOO very last week.
Lynn
Sorry, I wasn’t posting last week. I have a life. But tell the truth, Lynniski, you really to offense at the Texas shot, right?
terggie
Hmm. The Canadian judge awards it a 0.3, and the American judge gives it a 0.5, even though it is addressed to a fellow Texan. Average is 0.4; nope, sorry, doesn’t qualify.
Hey guys! Remember all those do-violence-to-lawyers jokes you put away (out of RESPECT for me, of course! ;))? This is the place for 'em, and the “butt” of the joke is this terggie thingie. Don’t use your best ones, though – this is only a $15 an hour lawyer we talking about here. Shows, doesn’t it?
-Melin
Siamese attack puppet – California