Botters get pwned by Taj...

[Olorin401]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

Agreed with what Itazura said. I don't think anyone here is questioning the fact that was Taj did is illegal, and what he's done in the past was illegal.

The question is whether SE's use of that information in its efforts to curb RMT and/or cheating players is legal, and the answer is Yes. They can use the information if they want to in the course of their investigations. The problem would arise when and if SE brought such activity to court - they would most likely need to show that their evidence that players who used this program to "steal services" from SE was not rooted in this list of players. Otherwise the court could throw out a case based on tainted evidence.

On another note, I'm invoking Godwin's Law on this thread. Edit: Someone beat me to it lol... in any case it's probably a good time to close this thread.

[eticket109]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

Like SE ever gives or justifies a reason for anything they do.

Regardless, all that page will do is spread accusation and dischord throughout the FFXI communities.

[Ziero]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

Nazi kept lists of their Jewish victims, with names, ID numbers, dates, etc. If there has ever been "lists" as products of a vile crime, those are exemplary in the worst possible manner.
Do you think there's anything wrong with doing scholarly research with those lists? Say, if a historian want to produce an animated map of Nazi's extermination campaign, as a teaching tool to show how the madness spread?
Or, would you rather bury the lists along with all knowledge of and from that crime?

The use of Nazi and/or Hitler comparisons of any type is an infraction of Godwin's Law and thus an insta loss.

Also, the information distributed on that list was obtained through illegal actions. Meaning that the act of distributing that list is a crime. A 'dirty document' is something that can not be legally used to prosecute an offender. It is not a 'public list' as it goes against the law to publish that list. If I stole a hundred people's credit card numbers and personal information, then posted it on a website you couldn't go and use that information because I made it public.

I'm by no means a legal expert but I don't think there's a difference under the law. The communication in my example provides plausible deniability for the officer inciting the act, but if the officer simply mentioned the need for information with no further intent and the informant simply took the initiative I think the result would ultimately be the same. Evidence can't be obtained illegally. In the case of a motor vehicle, they can use anything in plain sight, but to actually search the vehicle they need your permission or a warrant, though the formality of obtaining a warrant for a car is really more of a hassle or an obstable so far as I can tell.

Actually, police just need probable cause to search a person/vehicle and refusing to be searched is grounds for probable cause. If they stop a car for driving erraticly, decide to search the vehicle and find 10 pounds of drugs and a dead body in your back seat, they can use that evidence in court.

Long story short, I doubt SE even needs 'the list'.

[Kailea]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

Information obtained through illegal means, can not be used, plain and simple.

Reading the list is not illegal, but using its information would be a bad idea, because of the source of said info.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

This is turning especially ugly...

あそこの女おり私のほうが美しい。

------------------------------------------

Legality of information tangent

I still think some information gathered via illegal-like means (like whistle blowers, esp. those who are not officers of law) can be use in courts, and that truly illegally obatained information can be used to convince courts to issue warrants so prosecutors can get to the information legally. But, as you said, legality is not really the issues here.

Evidence can't be obtained illegally. In the case of a motor vehicle, they can use anything in plain sight, but to actually search the vehicle they need your permission or a warrant, though the formality of obtaining a warrant for a car is really more of a hassle or an obstable so far as I can tell.

I'm reasonably sure police has the right to search cars without warrants, as long as they can cite a probable cause. Take for example:

Police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle if it was stopped by police on the road or is in a non-residential area, so long as the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. Police may then search in the passenger compartment and any open or container with that vehicle.

Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect's outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion - a Terry 'stop and frisk.'

That, and on the way back from San Diego on the freeway, we always go through a police checkpoint of sorts. Whoever those officers are, they sure do think they have to right to search any car--just that I look so harmless they don't even glance at me twice as they wave me by...

Whether the information itself is tainted is a matter of perspective. Without the context of being acquired illegally there's nothing wrong with the data itself. But because we know the data is connected with the hacking, that makes it tainted imo.

I would agree it is tainted as well, just the taint itself should not be the standard for baring usage.

SE's use of it would be unethical because of the secondary effects. If you were to take the event in isolation then using the information to clean up the game is benign or benevolent, but it's not truly isolated. There's a causal factor of the malicious server attack and possible secondary effects of encouraging more.

I'm a bit uneasy with this.

If you hold an actor responsible for all possible secondary effects from using tainted info, you can do the same in absence of tainted info. That has drastic consequences; would it be immoral for me to drive on the road because I may add to the possibility of fatal accidents because at some point in time my car may obscure the view of some pedestrian from some car making a turn?

Even if you merely hold an actor responsible for likely secondary effects, you'd have to be have a fairly good motivation model for the hacker(s) in our case. Not sure if we can demand S-E to have a clear insight into any hacker's brain...

The information management is something of an issue. If nobody ever finds out they use the information then it doesn't really cause a problem, but from the other side if anyone on the list gets investigated and banned, whether SE followed that list to them or not, it will probably be interpreted to mean that they're using the list.

Given that it's likely the causal effect (list -> ban) would be indeterminable, wouldn't that annul the argument of ethical dilemma due to secondary effects?

If hackers cannot tell for sure whether S-E used the info or not, we should not be able to say S-E has (indirectly) encouraged them.

* * *

I never thought I'd say this, but I now wish I paid more attention in philosophy class.

[Taskmage]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

This scenario is predicated on communication between the officer and the law breaker, as in "reading between the lines."
Would it still apply if, say, a whistle blower hacks into his employer's computer system, grab the hidden accounting info, and brings it to the D.A.? Would the D.A. still not be allowed to use it?
What if it's mass e-mailed to all D.A. office workers by the zealous whistle blower? Would the D.A. have grounds to ask the courts for a warrant, in that case, to search the company? (This has some parallel with our case!)
* * *
I do seem recall other scenarios where officers came across evidence of illegal activity without warrants, and evidence would remain admissible. (I'm not a lawyer, so don't count on my legal views. XD ) Nothing directly applicable to our discussion, but there should be things like "found during hot pursuit", "can search car if encountered suspicious occupant activity/reaction in motor vehicle", etc. under which evidence found during searches without warrants are permitted.
But, I digress...

I'm by no means a legal expert but I don't think there's a difference under the law. The communication in my example provides plausible deniability for the officer inciting the act, but if the officer simply mentioned the need for information with no further intent and the informant simply took the initiative I think the result would ultimately be the same. Evidence can't be obtained illegally. In the case of a motor vehicle, they can use anything in plain sight, but to actually search the vehicle they need your permission or a warrant, though the formality of obtaining a warrant for a car is really more of a hassle or an obstable so far as I can tell.

This is almost about the PR management; if S-E quietly uses the info, would it still have that "encouragement" factor?
Also, the ethical dilemma here is centered around secondary effects of using this publicly available information--it is troubling because of the possible result of encouraging law breakers to break more laws--not because the information itself is tainted and the S-E's use of it would unethical?

The information management is something of an issue. If nobody ever finds out they use the information then it doesn't really cause a problem, but from the other side if anyone on the list gets investigated and banned, whether SE followed that list to them or not, it will probably be interpreted to mean that they're using the list.

Whether the information itself is tainted is a matter of perspective. Without the context of being acquired illegally there's nothing wrong with the data itself. But because we know the data is connected with the hacking, that makes it tainted imo. SE's use of it would be unethical because of the secondary effects. If you were to take the event in isolation then using the information to clean up the game is benign or benevolent, but it's not truly isolated. There's a causal factor of the malicious server attack and possible secondary effects of encouraging more.

[Nuriko]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

This is turning especially ugly...

[Sevv]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

One of the old tests of a good person is do they act in all things with basic integrity. Do they lie, cheat, or steal? If it is only ingame that they lack integrity then perhaps the banstick is required to allow them to enjoy endevors that do not lessen them as individuals. I do not know if the list is accurate, but any who were cheating to pull ahead of other players I would rather see removed so those who are honest can gain the rewards of work and patience without it being yanked by some jerk with a claim hack.
Sorry if this offendes, but my dearest ingame wish is to see the botters and gilbuyers publically deleted in Jeuno once per month. (GM Dave event Beat the botter ^..^)

If they cheat it is really not being a bad person tho is it? Have you eve used a cheat code in any game, because that is cheating. I am saying that some of these people on the list are good people irl, they still cheated in ffxi and lost alot of my respect. I don't consider some of them good players anymore tho. The list is sadly very accurate, and this is probably 10% if not less of the real botter list.

I am not saying they don't deserve banstick, just saying I don't think anytime one of them posts here the community should tar and feather them.

S-E will more or less use the info, but in doing so they just supported the hacker who cracked into friends list plus.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

I believe in legal terms this is called fruit of a poisoned tree. The damage has already been done, but to go forward and use the information would be to encourage or validate the act.

Interesting. ^_^

Suppose a police officer were to say to an informant that he needs certain information but he's not going to ask anyone to break into his records and obtain it. If the informant takes the hint and performs an illegal act to obtain the necessary evidence, a court most likely wouldn't allow it to be submitted.

This scenario is predicated on communication between the officer and the law breaker, as in "reading between the lines."

Would it still apply if, say, a whistle blower hacks into his employer's computer system, grab the hidden accounting info, and brings it to the D.A.? Would the D.A. still not be allowed to use it?

What if it's mass e-mailed to all D.A. office workers by the zealous whistle blower? Would the D.A. have grounds to ask the courts for a warrant, in that case, to search the company? (This has some parallel with our case!)

* * *

I do seem recall other scenarios where officers came across evidence of illegal activity without warrants, and evidence would remain admissible. (I'm not a lawyer, so don't count on my legal views. XD ) Nothing directly applicable to our discussion, but there should be things like "found during hot pursuit", "can search car if encountered suspicious occupant activity/reaction in motor vehicle", etc. under which evidence found during searches without warrants are permitted.

But, I digress...

* * *

This isn't court, so there isn't a legal barrier but there's still something of an ethical dilemma. If SE uses the list in any way, then it could be said that the hack was a "good thing" or that it "got results" which would likely encourage Taj or copycat hackers to repeat the illegal act to help or encourage their target organizations into taking the action they want.

This is almost about the PR management; if S-E quietly uses the info, would it still have that "encouragement" factor?

Also, the ethical dilemma here is centered around secondary effects of using this publicly available information--it is troubling because of the possible result of encouraging law breakers to break more laws--not because the information itself is tainted and the S-E's use of it would unethical?

* * *

Edit:

Ita: So now it's not ok to do criminal acts to stop cheaters, but cheaters in an online game are comparable to the holocaust?

Good grief, Feb. I was drawing parallel between the use of lists, not between the crimes. (Why do I even have to clarify that? One would think it'd be obvious.)

If you wouldn't think lists produced by one crime is immoral to use, then you have to offer better reason than "I say so!" when you say the use of some other lists are immoral.

Try to emulate Taskmage, and put forth some reasonings.

[Feba]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

Ita: So now it's not ok to do criminal acts to stop cheaters, but cheaters in an online game are comparable to the holocaust?


I'm just gonna call Godwin's law on this thread, you got close enough.

[Taskmage]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

I believe in legal terms this is called fruit of a poisoned tree. The damage has already been done, but to go forward and use the information would be to encourage or validate the act. Suppose a police officer were to say to an informant that he needs certain information but he's not going to ask anyone to break into his records and obtain it. If the informant takes the hint and performs an illegal act to obtain the necessary evidence, a court most likely wouldn't allow it to be submitted.

This isn't court, so there isn't a legal barrier but there's still something of an ethical dilemma. If SE uses the list in any way, then it could be said that the hack was a "good thing" or that it "got results" which would likely encourage Taj or copycat hackers to repeat the illegal act to help or encourage their target organizations into taking the action they want.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

You're still mixing up the legality of what Taj did and the legality of reading (and using) the information he released.

If you're asking would I prohibit Taj (or anyone else) from hacking that site if I have the power, the answer is "Of course."

If you're asking what hackers like that should be tossed into jail, the answer is "Of course" again.

If you're asking if there's anything wrong with using the info--now publicly available--in a limited, legal, and responsible manner, my answer is "No. That's fine."

* * *

Nazi kept lists of their Jewish victims, with names, ID numbers, dates, etc. If there has ever been "lists" as products of a vile crime, those are exemplary in the worst possible manner.

Do you think there's anything wrong with doing scholarly research with those lists? Say, if a historian want to produce an animated map of Nazi's extermination campaign, as a teaching tool to show how the madness spread?

Or, would you rather bury the lists along with all knowledge of and from that crime?

[Feba]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

So you have absolutely no problem with criminal activity, if it might have a chance of stopping a few cheaters in a video game. At all.


Alright then.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

using information that was illegally obtained, illegally distributed, and by a known criminal, who has admitted to many other crimes?

It does not make reading the list a crime. I'm staking my future freedom on that belief. As I've said, S-E would not have to obtain the info illegally, unless you think browsing the BG site or DiV site (how I found out) should be made illegal.

You seem to have a moral objection, but I don't see any legal obstacle there for S-E. I disagree with you on the whether it would be immoral to use the information, of course, in the limited manner I suggested. (That's "Maybe put on watch list", not "BANSTICK on sight!")

And btw, information inside books in a library is mostly not public, most of it is copyrighted.

As this post is on a publicly accessible forum, it is both public, and copyrighted to myself, except for the portions of your post I excerpted under the fair use doctrine; those excerpts are copyrighted to you. (Note that I did not have to explicitly claim the copyright as I just did; it is conferred to me automatically under the law for all public and private work set in fixed medium I produce, as long as they contain sufficient creative contents such as but not limited to unique wording.)

Does that make clear the difference between concepts like public, copyrighted, and hopefully usability of a publicly posted list? (Again, lists cannot ordinarily be copyrighted, to my understanding.)

[Feba]

Re: Botters get pwned by Taj...

Ok, so you have absolutely no objection to SE using information that was illegally obtained, illegally distributed, and by a known criminal, who has admitted to many other crimes? You don't find computer crime something that should be illegal at all?



And btw, information inside books in a library is mostly not public, most of it is copyrighted.