Should Hackers Get Jail Time?
-
I've been enjoying online games for about 12 years. In every online game I've played sooner or later someone develops a hack (aimbot, speed hack, etc) and makes a little bit of money marketing it to other players. For a recent example see the Mass Murder hack for Battlefield 3: Mass Murder[^] There are a couple of things that I understand: 1: I understand developing such a hack can be a fun challenge. 2: I understand that the hack has a humorous side to it. That said, in the end a bunch of paying customers for a company are having their entertainment ruined by people who obviously have no interest in playing the game with any integrity. Time and time again I've seen hundreds, and even thousands of people, disrupted because of these sorts of hacks. This seems to be a threat to real people's livelyhood and it ruins the fun for many paying customers. I know it seems draconian, but I'd like to see hard jail time for the people who develop these programs. Somehow, I think if I could program McDonald's coffee machines to spray the interior of restaurant that I'd get some jail time for that behavior. If I could program Ford automobiles to flash their lights randomly or cause city buses to be late there would also be severe punishment. Maybe I'm getting old - but one thing I really dislike about the internet is the sub-culture that seems to feed off making other people's lives miserable. It would be nice to read about these "shops" getting busted up and some hacker kiddies getting slapped around a bit. I realize the hacks are not dangerous and these are games, it's just the opportunistic mindset of a n'vr-do-well that bugs me to no end. It's like they wake up and think: Oh, a new game. How can I ruin it for thousands of people? Weeding these folks out of the gene pool would be good for the long term success of human kind. Too harsh?
Blame the developers. They should know by now, what types of hacks are going to be made... These games are sickly expensive. How hard is it really, to make it impossible for a bullet to go through a wall? It sounds REALLY EASY to make it IMPOSSIBLE. Battlefield sucks, and the people who made it suck. From programmer to programmer, they SUCKED and it's (almost) deserved that someone would teach them a lesson. Don't blame the curious smart people, blame the retards who coded the bullet trajectory code.
-
Storm-blade wrote:
ou see the same thing on counterstrike and halflife deathmatch servers, players using radar who know you are hiding around corners etc, they are pretty obvious as they just walk around the corner and shoot straight at you, but they claim they are just 'better players'.
I play HL2 quite a bit. I quite often get accused of hacking because it appears I walk round a corner and shoot someone, or get three headshots in a row, or whatever. I wouldn't know how to hack - I'm just a good, experienced player. I listen, I know places people often hide on maps, and I'm quick. It's apparent that some people do use hacks - but in my experience the best thing to do is just to leave the server they are on - assuming you know they are using hacks and it isn't just because they pwned you!
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I quite often get accused of hacking because it appears I walk round a corner and shoot someone, or get three headshots in a row, or whatever.
Yes, this is quite normal, the difference is when a player comes around a corner facing into an alcove where another player is hiding, and shoots as soon as they are visable, and does it repeatedly in different locations, it becomes obvious it's not skill or luck.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
best thing to do is just to leave the server they are on
I agree, but when there are not many good servers for these older games, there is just nowhere else to go.
-
I'm not sure yet. Meanwhile, guns are marketed as murder weapons, and that doesn't seem to be a problem.
I don't think they are marketed as 'Murder' weapons ("The all new peashooter 45, perfect to bump off the mother-in-law"), just as a tool for 'self defence' or hunting animals.
-
Too harsh, I'm afraid. You see, they usually aren't causing much actual damage. They're just pissing a handful of people off for a bit, cause a couple of ragequits.. But they'll get over it. That's why your analogies are flawed - it's not an actual problem, it's more like promising people cake and then not giving it to them. And anyway, developing any kind of program should never be illegal. That's basically censorship and the tools aren't the problem - using them is.
harold aptroot wrote:
it's more like promising people cake and then not giving it to them.
I disagree - your analogy fails. The game developer should track and throw off, permanently, anyone using bots. The other players have paid for that game. By comparison, it would be like selling me cake, then allowing someone else to eat it before handing it to me. Jail is definitely too harsh, but bot developers should maybe face hefty fines - after all they are disrupting legitimate business activity. If the game developer hasn't taken reasonable precautions to prevent abuse, maybe they should be liable too. Gamers using such bots should simply be banned. Further,
harold aptroot wrote:
they usually aren't causing much actual damage
They could be - if a game gets to a point where new players are put off buying the game, they are disrupting a legitimate business.
-
I'd like to introduce you to a legal concept: Its called 'accessory to a crime'. Its legal definition is very specific.. "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal." Now.. with software it boils down to common usage. If the common usage isn't tailored to a criminal activity, (like for instance using Word to create a document which is used to threaten someone), then the software isn't related. This same argument goes for guns. Guns can kill people, but can be used to both prevent and assist criminal activity. So they don't have in their design a leaning one way or the other. By their very nature they are neutral actors. The same cannot be said of software who's only purpose is to assist criminals... Word is obviously a neutral software.. but software who's only purpose is to assist in hacking or cracking bank accounts or the like is not immune from this consideration, and the producers of it shouldn't be immune from prosecution (which they would be under your take.. as far as I can tell). Your original argument doesn't hold water.. because it doesn't take this into account.
-
I would think if you are posting on this site you are more interested in technology, algorithms, tools and such of either making apps or hacking them, irrelevant. If you are more interested in playing games than underlying technology may I suggest http://www.disney.com?
and this is the lounge. If you can't handle non-programming messages, can I suggest you stick to the other forums.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
it's more like promising people cake and then not giving it to them.
I disagree - your analogy fails. The game developer should track and throw off, permanently, anyone using bots. The other players have paid for that game. By comparison, it would be like selling me cake, then allowing someone else to eat it before handing it to me. Jail is definitely too harsh, but bot developers should maybe face hefty fines - after all they are disrupting legitimate business activity. If the game developer hasn't taken reasonable precautions to prevent abuse, maybe they should be liable too. Gamers using such bots should simply be banned. Further,
harold aptroot wrote:
they usually aren't causing much actual damage
They could be - if a game gets to a point where new players are put off buying the game, they are disrupting a legitimate business.
-
I know where you coming from. I'm myself choosing to concentrate on the technical aspects of the issue rather than ethical. On one side there is a open source side of the coin where source should be open and if developer wants to hack-prove their game, they need spend some resources and do it. On the other hand I can understand frustration the developer and users feel when someone tinkers with their stuff. However by the same standard, when people are finding and exploring holes in the Windows, all the calls for ethical behavour are pointless, the only real solution is for Microsoft to fix the problem. I think there is no arguing that Windows today are safer and more stable than any other environment just because so many hackers for such a long time had a chance to explore it and because developer (Microsoft) took care of uncovered issues. I choose to look at the hackers as free, white box, high quality testers - by finding and exposing the problems, I think they only doing service for the developers, as public and unpleasant as it may be.
gstolarov wrote:
I think there is no arguing that Windows today are safer and more stable than any other environment
Splutters coffee into keyboard - you are kidding right? I like Windows, use and develop for it regularly, but if you seriously think it comes close to being as you describe, I'd never let you work on my servers.
-
That's just pure monetary damage - makes for a nice civil case, not a criminal one. So there would be no fines, just compensation of losses.
It strikes me as akin to vandalism, which is a criminal offence.
-
It strikes me as akin to vandalism, which is a criminal offence.
-
I've been enjoying online games for about 12 years. In every online game I've played sooner or later someone develops a hack (aimbot, speed hack, etc) and makes a little bit of money marketing it to other players. For a recent example see the Mass Murder hack for Battlefield 3: Mass Murder[^] There are a couple of things that I understand: 1: I understand developing such a hack can be a fun challenge. 2: I understand that the hack has a humorous side to it. That said, in the end a bunch of paying customers for a company are having their entertainment ruined by people who obviously have no interest in playing the game with any integrity. Time and time again I've seen hundreds, and even thousands of people, disrupted because of these sorts of hacks. This seems to be a threat to real people's livelyhood and it ruins the fun for many paying customers. I know it seems draconian, but I'd like to see hard jail time for the people who develop these programs. Somehow, I think if I could program McDonald's coffee machines to spray the interior of restaurant that I'd get some jail time for that behavior. If I could program Ford automobiles to flash their lights randomly or cause city buses to be late there would also be severe punishment. Maybe I'm getting old - but one thing I really dislike about the internet is the sub-culture that seems to feed off making other people's lives miserable. It would be nice to read about these "shops" getting busted up and some hacker kiddies getting slapped around a bit. I realize the hacks are not dangerous and these are games, it's just the opportunistic mindset of a n'vr-do-well that bugs me to no end. It's like they wake up and think: Oh, a new game. How can I ruin it for thousands of people? Weeding these folks out of the gene pool would be good for the long term success of human kind. Too harsh?
MehGerbil wrote:
Too harsh?
I think so. I never used any hacks/cheats even in single player games, because to me it ruins the experience. The game provides a challenge, if the challenge is gone, it's also gone the point of playing it. Some people really just do it to ruin the experience for others, they often fell pleasure to ruin other people's experiences. So they aren't there for the game challenge, but the challenge of making other people's experience miserable. Having said that, people that develop hacks may do it for several reasons. Maybe because they are the web bullies themselves, maybe for the programming challenge of it. It's often much more fun to practice coding skills when they are associated to something you love to do on the free time: Gaming. We can't factor their intentions to determine if they deserve or not jail time. I think web bulling is just like real life bulling and I don't think that's a motive for jail time. What's next? Jail time for calling someone a "noob"? I do believe jail time is appropriate for people that develop hacks in order to exploit the game and use it to make profit, like hacking an account and stealing items of World of Warcraft to sell it for money later. That's have an economical impact to it and is closer to real life fraud, which is a crime and it makes sense to be. Now, the game developer is the sole responsible to protect the experience of their customers. If they fail to do so, you should be entitled to have a refund or file a law suit against the company. You bought a non-faulty product and you paid for an experience. If that can't be delivered, then it's just like you bought a broken toy. The company themselves should take measures to punish the hackers, like having an active investigation team that can identify and ban players from the online servers (license agreement can handle that). This type of thing will discourage online hacking and will punish in cash the little pricks. But jail time? I don't thinks so.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
Blame the developers. They should know by now, what types of hacks are going to be made... These games are sickly expensive. How hard is it really, to make it impossible for a bullet to go through a wall? It sounds REALLY EASY to make it IMPOSSIBLE. Battlefield sucks, and the people who made it suck. From programmer to programmer, they SUCKED and it's (almost) deserved that someone would teach them a lesson. Don't blame the curious smart people, blame the retards who coded the bullet trajectory code.
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Don't blame the curious smart people, blame the retards who coded the bullet trajectory code.
That alone, earned my 5!
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
harold aptroot wrote:
it's more like promising people cake and then not giving it to them.
I disagree - your analogy fails. The game developer should track and throw off, permanently, anyone using bots. The other players have paid for that game. By comparison, it would be like selling me cake, then allowing someone else to eat it before handing it to me. Jail is definitely too harsh, but bot developers should maybe face hefty fines - after all they are disrupting legitimate business activity. If the game developer hasn't taken reasonable precautions to prevent abuse, maybe they should be liable too. Gamers using such bots should simply be banned. Further,
harold aptroot wrote:
they usually aren't causing much actual damage
They could be - if a game gets to a point where new players are put off buying the game, they are disrupting a legitimate business.
-
I'm talking about something beyond the actual players.
I'm talking about going after the people who create, market, and sell cheat programs.That's a tough call. Software to jailbreak your phone might fall under this category (Apple would certainly think so). An app that allows you to tether other devices to your phone (which AT&T prohibits) is another example. For your two examples ...
Would I be able to freely create, market, and sell programs that are specifically designed to hack bank accounts, ATMS, or other financial services? I'm not talking about a general program that could be used for that - I'm talking something designed/marketed specifically for the task.
That's already illegal. In the USA, it likely falls under Title 18 Section 2511.
Would I be able to freely create, market, and sell programs that cause gas station pumps to sell me gas for thirty cents a gallon instead of the normal $3.50? I could tell the gas station attendant that it's his job to run a secure system.
That's already illegal too; probably under the same set of laws. I don't see a new law needed here.
I don't care for parasites.
I hear you. Following the gist of what you're saying, the challenge is to distinguish a third-party or after-market product from a tool for fraud. The specific examples in the OP related to cheating in a game. The cheating relates to violating a TOS, not committing a crime. There's good behavior, bad behavior, and criminal behavior. The cheaters (and cheat peddlers) are annoying to be sure. But, I don't see law enforcement as an appropriate replacement for customer service.
-
His point is that a cheat program is no different to the two analogues which, as you agree, are actually illegal. So so should cheat programs be.
He seems to keep hitting the point that he doesn't want any new laws. The creation of new laws seems to be his soapbox, not the issue of hacking. Whether the charges are civil, criminal or what have you - that is immaterial to me as long as a company has a means to hunt down and destroy people who actively destroy all of that hard work.
-
Blame the developers. They should know by now, what types of hacks are going to be made... These games are sickly expensive. How hard is it really, to make it impossible for a bullet to go through a wall? It sounds REALLY EASY to make it IMPOSSIBLE. Battlefield sucks, and the people who made it suck. From programmer to programmer, they SUCKED and it's (almost) deserved that someone would teach them a lesson. Don't blame the curious smart people, blame the retards who coded the bullet trajectory code.
Nice troll. Let's review, shall we?
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Blame the developers. They should know by now, what types of hacks are going to be made...
They do know. PunkBuster (anti-cheat software) was in place at launch. They've a whole team of people working on the problem.
ii_noname_ii wrote:
These games are sickly expensive. How hard is it really, to make it impossible for a bullet to go through a wall? It sounds REALLY EASY to make it IMPOSSIBLE.
What offends me about this post is that whole teams of very intelligent people work to solve these issues and you write off all those people as "retards". Fortunately, you have the opportunity to show all these "retards" how it's done. I'm sure the gaming industry would love to have your solution and would be willing to pay $$$$$ for it.
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Battlefield sucks, and the people who made it suck. From programmer to programmer, they SUCKED and it's (almost) deserved that someone would teach them a lesson.
Regardless of your poorly informed opinion, Battlefield 3 is a state of the art game with exceptional graphics and game-play. It has sold over 10 million copies and will likely generate a billion dollars net this year. It is one of the most successful franchises in FPS games. I'm sorry that you got owned - maybe you should try an ezmode shooter like COD?
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Don't blame the curious smart people, blame the retards who coded the bullet trajectory code.
So people who write, market, and sell hacks are merely "curious"? In your world I'm sure Hitler wasn't a mass murder, no, he just didn't like Matzah Ball Soup! The thing is, the bullet trajectory code works - it's the hack that breaks it, ya narb. Surely you can understand how hacking a system could cause it to not work properly, which is, of course, the point of the hack in the first place.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
Too harsh?
Uh... yes.
MehGerbil wrote:
It's like they wake up and think: Oh, a new game. How can I ruin it for thousands of people?
But that's not what they're thinking at all. They are thinking that they are very good at this and they can make some money or impress some people with their cleverness. Really: they're not out to get you (well, some are) at all. Your ire should be directed at the game maker for allowing these hacks in the first place. The game makers are the ones who should go to jail (just kidding).
m.bergman
For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered. -- Voltaire
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. -- Steve Landesberg
It seems pretty clear from the diversity and tone of the replies that there are two camps here. One of people who have become frustrated by a poor online experience, and the other who seem rather blase about it, to the point where I would have to assume, since they see nothing wrong with the practice, that perhaps they too have used these hacks. Aside from the likelihood that the hack-users are probably losers in real life (since one can only hold down a decent job for so long as an active fraud), they are also diminshing the community they play in. The most affected are those who are not themselves extremely skilled - who are also mosg likely newer players. If you deter newer players, then you shrink the hobby. If you shrink the hobby, then you end up with less places to play, and less opponents to face, until you are in a pool with nothing but other hackers. Perhaps that is punishment enough - but it fails to address the real money and time invested by people trying to enjoy the hobby without cheating.
-
Nice troll. Let's review, shall we?
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Blame the developers. They should know by now, what types of hacks are going to be made...
They do know. PunkBuster (anti-cheat software) was in place at launch. They've a whole team of people working on the problem.
ii_noname_ii wrote:
These games are sickly expensive. How hard is it really, to make it impossible for a bullet to go through a wall? It sounds REALLY EASY to make it IMPOSSIBLE.
What offends me about this post is that whole teams of very intelligent people work to solve these issues and you write off all those people as "retards". Fortunately, you have the opportunity to show all these "retards" how it's done. I'm sure the gaming industry would love to have your solution and would be willing to pay $$$$$ for it.
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Battlefield sucks, and the people who made it suck. From programmer to programmer, they SUCKED and it's (almost) deserved that someone would teach them a lesson.
Regardless of your poorly informed opinion, Battlefield 3 is a state of the art game with exceptional graphics and game-play. It has sold over 10 million copies and will likely generate a billion dollars net this year. It is one of the most successful franchises in FPS games. I'm sorry that you got owned - maybe you should try an ezmode shooter like COD?
ii_noname_ii wrote:
Don't blame the curious smart people, blame the retards who coded the bullet trajectory code.
So people who write, market, and sell hacks are merely "curious"? In your world I'm sure Hitler wasn't a mass murder, no, he just didn't like Matzah Ball Soup! The thing is, the bullet trajectory code works - it's the hack that breaks it, ya narb. Surely you can understand how hacking a system could cause it to not work properly, which is, of course, the point of the hack in the first place.
Ok. But my opinion hasn't changed. The superteams of people you mention got outsmarted by ONE person. Fire the team, hire the ONE person who beat them all. That whole team, "punkbuster": FAIL. "
Quote:
I'm sure the gaming industry would love to have your solution and would be willing to pay $$$$$ for it.
" Sure. Hire me. But I already make a good living making software that works better than what whole teams make. I'm not cheap though. They'd have to be prepared to pay me real good to steal me from my current job, that I love. AND they'd have to be prepared to not have access to my source code, as I would consider every "team member" a security risk. Be as offended as you want, these "teams" do not impress me one bit. They failed. I've seen how large software companies work. It's hilarious and unefficient.
-
I've been enjoying online games for about 12 years. In every online game I've played sooner or later someone develops a hack (aimbot, speed hack, etc) and makes a little bit of money marketing it to other players. For a recent example see the Mass Murder hack for Battlefield 3: Mass Murder[^] There are a couple of things that I understand: 1: I understand developing such a hack can be a fun challenge. 2: I understand that the hack has a humorous side to it. That said, in the end a bunch of paying customers for a company are having their entertainment ruined by people who obviously have no interest in playing the game with any integrity. Time and time again I've seen hundreds, and even thousands of people, disrupted because of these sorts of hacks. This seems to be a threat to real people's livelyhood and it ruins the fun for many paying customers. I know it seems draconian, but I'd like to see hard jail time for the people who develop these programs. Somehow, I think if I could program McDonald's coffee machines to spray the interior of restaurant that I'd get some jail time for that behavior. If I could program Ford automobiles to flash their lights randomly or cause city buses to be late there would also be severe punishment. Maybe I'm getting old - but one thing I really dislike about the internet is the sub-culture that seems to feed off making other people's lives miserable. It would be nice to read about these "shops" getting busted up and some hacker kiddies getting slapped around a bit. I realize the hacks are not dangerous and these are games, it's just the opportunistic mindset of a n'vr-do-well that bugs me to no end. It's like they wake up and think: Oh, a new game. How can I ruin it for thousands of people? Weeding these folks out of the gene pool would be good for the long term success of human kind. Too harsh?
"Maybe I'm getting old" - ouch. Not that! Hey, getting old or staying young doesn't matter - wanting to do the right thing can be desirous at any age. (Gamle == old in Norwegian). Anyway, hackers are just an amazing bunch; they're just [juvenile] deliquents. I agree - send 'em to jail. But you're gonna have a hard time jailing people from all corners of the [small] planet. Pretty harsh ... but not too harsh.
-
Ok. But my opinion hasn't changed. The superteams of people you mention got outsmarted by ONE person. Fire the team, hire the ONE person who beat them all. That whole team, "punkbuster": FAIL. "
Quote:
I'm sure the gaming industry would love to have your solution and would be willing to pay $$$$$ for it.
" Sure. Hire me. But I already make a good living making software that works better than what whole teams make. I'm not cheap though. They'd have to be prepared to pay me real good to steal me from my current job, that I love. AND they'd have to be prepared to not have access to my source code, as I would consider every "team member" a security risk. Be as offended as you want, these "teams" do not impress me one bit. They failed. I've seen how large software companies work. It's hilarious and unefficient.