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?
The game is implemented wrong. The clients are responsible for the wrong things and the server doesn't check that they aren't hacked (or does so in an easy-to-defeat way). These are noob SW design mistakes, so the implementors are complicit in this. If you send the hackers to jail, then you need to send the implementors too, and then who'd be left to implement the next game (and who would want to take the risk). You can get all worked up about this, or you can vote with your feet and move along to a new game implemented by a different team. Continuing to play this game is only making it more valuable to the implementors, validating their decision to not care too much about when hacks appear and how disruptive they become.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
I don't think it can be called ragequitting if your girlfriend entices you away from the game. We need a new word for this. brewquit, sexquit, lifequit?
-
In this case, I think morality and legality happen to agree (there are many cases where I don't think they agree). You'll have to explain yourself rather than say 'hell no' before I think you have a real point. Secondly.. are you saying the hacking software is released by these companies? Pretty sure that is not the case. And given that they don't, it just reinforces my point. If the security companies understand it only has malicious intent when 'released into the wild'.. it is further proof that those that *do* release it *do* have malicious intent. I know folks that work in that part of the software industry. Its a constant battle to keep up.. and they take all that very seriously. Again, your points are falling flat.
-
The game is implemented wrong. The clients are responsible for the wrong things and the server doesn't check that they aren't hacked (or does so in an easy-to-defeat way). These are noob SW design mistakes, so the implementors are complicit in this. If you send the hackers to jail, then you need to send the implementors too, and then who'd be left to implement the next game (and who would want to take the risk). You can get all worked up about this, or you can vote with your feet and move along to a new game implemented by a different team. Continuing to play this game is only making it more valuable to the implementors, validating their decision to not care too much about when hacks appear and how disruptive they become.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
One of the most common hacks is a radar hack. Since the server has to send the location of other players to the client I don't see how you'd prevent a 3rd party program from gathering that information and displaying all of it in a way that gives teh cheater an advantage. I don't think there is a single FPS that has been developed yet that hasn't been hacked. Based on your post I either have to write off every single game studio as being populated by slack-jawed morons or I have to accept the fact that preventing cheating is a bit more complex than what you suggest.
-
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.
a cheat program is no different to the two analogues which, as you agree, are actually illegal.
They are different. A cheat program changes game play. It may violate a civil contract but it does not steal money or a service. It changes the experience of game play, that's it. No free petrol. No transfer of funds out of a victim's account. Some cheat programs have legitimate uses in testing and QA. A game engine company sells you a 3D game engine with tools to expedite testing. Those same tools could be used to cheat. Should the game engine designers be arrested for providing these extra tools? Law makers would have a tough time drafting language to distinguish between the two. I agree that playing with cheats is no fun. Someone ruined your afternoon of game play. It sucks. I'm sorry. Bottom line - for me - is this is a civil matter. The game industry should handle this issue on it's own. Gerbil is correct to say I don't want new laws. I'd like to see some old, obsolete US laws removed (but that's another story). That's my position. If you think a law is needed, how would that work? How would you structure the language so that the people creating the games aren't themselves criminalized thereby stifling game quality, innovation, and competition.
-
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?
If companies would start interpreting these folk as misguided genius (provided that they are the ones that wrote the 'sploit), then I'm sure that it would put a damper on the overall scheme of it. There is that sense of mistrust, however. In a way it is much like interpreting drug kingpins as great businessmen (able to handle a lot of stress, great organizational skills). But comfort to some is worth more than a "life of crime". Successfully "weeding" out THESE individuals would be worthwhile to the overall economy. The FBI already does this at Defcon. You mention genes in this. I'm sure that law enforcement is interested in identifying that "criminal gene", and they are indeed serious about it - in the United States they collect DNA from criminals after a felony is committed. However, I am sure that their system is not perfect. I'm sure they would be able to find this gene in those that follow dangerous pursuits in life, such as stock market warriors.
-
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?
Did you really just say give hard jail time to people who hack games? Come on, like we don't have enough people in prison now. Virtual hard time I'd agree with (i.e. banning from the game for using hacks...which I believe has been done by some vendors). To me, it's the responsibility of the game developers and the ones making money off the games to enforce the laws (or to go wild west if they so desire).
-
LOL.. no.. just interested in this topic. I'm asking legitimate questions about the points you raise. You've made your choices.. its all cool.
-
Scenerio: 1: You and your friends invest big $$$ to develop a game. 2: You and your friends work endless hours on the game. 3: You and your friends invest additional $$$ to market the game. 4: You and your friends get 100,000 happy customers. Then some chuckle-head puts together a hack in his spare time and is now making money off a cheat that allows a small percentage of your customers to make thousands of your honest customers angry. Questions: How much income would such a cheat have to cost you before you saw it has a problem? How much developer time would you have to waste addressing these hacks (instead of adding new content) before you saw this has a problem? Serious questions - because I don't understand the mindset that holds that freedom includes the right to destroy other people's work.
you develop big money on a game and dont include provisions against hacks, or provide poor provisions you deserve what you got. and spending time developing against this is time well spent, it is knowledge you can use next time you make a game so you know what is and isnt exploitable. in the end its a game, that's it. if you are so passionate about it that you wish the cheaters to be thrown in jail you really need to get out more. its ultimately the job of the developers to make ways to counter cheating, prevent cheating from being possible at all, and/or detect cheating when it happens. if they can't detect the cheaters the law wont be able to do anything either. just let it go, complain to the company if you must, and if its rendered unplayable...play something else.
-
One of the most common hacks is a radar hack. Since the server has to send the location of other players to the client I don't see how you'd prevent a 3rd party program from gathering that information and displaying all of it in a way that gives teh cheater an advantage. I don't think there is a single FPS that has been developed yet that hasn't been hacked. Based on your post I either have to write off every single game studio as being populated by slack-jawed morons or I have to accept the fact that preventing cheating is a bit more complex than what you suggest.
You are right, a radar hack would be pretty hard to prevent. However, the example given later in the thread was that of one player hacking their client to allow their projectiles to be fired through walls across the playing field. And in my opinion, allowing that kind of hack to intermingle with unhacked players without giving them a choice, does require slack jawed morons. It means they chose to make each client responsible for the characteristics of its own projectiles with no server validation. I can see the reason for that kind of design -- it spreads more of the compute load onto the clients and reduces latency -- but it also leaves one's design open to hacks. Worse, they implemented this design with an easy-to-defeat (or maybe nonexistant) check to ensure only non-hacked (or similarily hacked) clients are allowed to play together on their servers. Again, I can see the value in that as it fosters a community of hackers who enjoy seeing what they can make the clients do. Personally, I see fostering such communities of hackers as a good thing, but allowing them to intermix and play against users running unmodified clients without giving players a choice in the matter is a poor design choice -- it ruins the game for players running unmodified clients, as the OP expressed. There's no way to prevent any game from being hacked, but the solution isn't a SW one, its a psychological one -- foster a hack community by making it easy to hack, track the various hacks via some kind of free registration, then allow players to choose which hacks they're willing to play against. Sorry, I've rambled a bit.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
Hardware compatibility != safety/stability. Yes, Windows runs on lots more hardware, but that's an entirely different issue. If you run, for example, SE Linux on supported hardware and configure it correctly its virtually impossible to hack. I cannot imagine any Windows version where that could be said.
-
a cheat program is no different to the two analogues which, as you agree, are actually illegal.
They are different. A cheat program changes game play. It may violate a civil contract but it does not steal money or a service. It changes the experience of game play, that's it. No free petrol. No transfer of funds out of a victim's account. Some cheat programs have legitimate uses in testing and QA. A game engine company sells you a 3D game engine with tools to expedite testing. Those same tools could be used to cheat. Should the game engine designers be arrested for providing these extra tools? Law makers would have a tough time drafting language to distinguish between the two. I agree that playing with cheats is no fun. Someone ruined your afternoon of game play. It sucks. I'm sorry. Bottom line - for me - is this is a civil matter. The game industry should handle this issue on it's own. Gerbil is correct to say I don't want new laws. I'd like to see some old, obsolete US laws removed (but that's another story). That's my position. If you think a law is needed, how would that work? How would you structure the language so that the people creating the games aren't themselves criminalized thereby stifling game quality, innovation, and competition.
unitrunker wrote:
They are different. A cheat program changes game play. It may violate a civil contract but it does not steal money or a service. It changes the experience of game play, that's it. No free petrol. No transfer of funds out of a victim's account.
I appreciate the difference that you're trying to make but I don't think it's legitimate. You've elevated "money" as the arbitrator of whether or not something is criminal or civil. If "money" (theft of funds or free services) was the determining factor then rape wouldn't be crime as long as the criminal didn't take the victim's purse. The same point could be made for things like attempted homicide and so forth. To say it "changes the experience of game play" grossly understates the problem. If it were a single player game nobody would care - however, these hackers are hacking a service and ruining it for other people so that they are driven away from the service. I understand about not wanting new laws but new technology demands it. We wouldn't need a speed limit without cars - but alas, new technology comes with it's own set of abuses and it has to be addressed.
-
Are you sure? So you did not deliberately misinterpret my argument, but accidentally? As for the morality, it's hard to discuss at all. There are no facts there, just opinions.
Spell out where I'm misinterpreting and we'll discuss. In the absence of real arguments I have nothing to respond to other that to say you are accusing me of actions and intentions without any info to back it up. I'll place here what I've place in other forums: I can only go on what I see in your words, not in what you are thinking. My intention is to respond to what I see.. that is all. Personally I think forums are a difficult place to make complex arguments.. *but*.. some things are worth responding to and getting peoples assumptions and conclusions stated.. I've seen the position you've taken (that I originally responded to) stated in the past.. and it was worth responding to here and now.. hence my motivation to even post... Call me whatever name you wish, ascribe to me whatever motivation you wish, but the above is my real motivation in posting in this thread. I've seen many folks try to justify the production of malicious software with arguments that seem logical, until you dig a bit. So far your responses have been less rational and more aggressive.. 'troll', etc. I simply am expressing what I think is the truth about your original point.. If you have logical points, by all means make them and I'll respond as I see fit.
-
Did you really just say give hard jail time to people who hack games? Come on, like we don't have enough people in prison now. Virtual hard time I'd agree with (i.e. banning from the game for using hacks...which I believe has been done by some vendors). To me, it's the responsibility of the game developers and the ones making money off the games to enforce the laws (or to go wild west if they so desire).
Not hard jail time for a kid who buys a hack and uses it in game. Rather, hard jail time for malicious programmers who create, market, and sell these hacks. 1: If you used a hack you'd purchased, no jail time. 2: If you create a hack, no jail time. 3: If you create and sell a hack, you get quality time with a new roommate named "Tiny".
-
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?
If it makes you feel better. If the risk of prison sentences, prevented crime, our prisons would be empty.
-
You are right, a radar hack would be pretty hard to prevent. However, the example given later in the thread was that of one player hacking their client to allow their projectiles to be fired through walls across the playing field. And in my opinion, allowing that kind of hack to intermingle with unhacked players without giving them a choice, does require slack jawed morons. It means they chose to make each client responsible for the characteristics of its own projectiles with no server validation. I can see the reason for that kind of design -- it spreads more of the compute load onto the clients and reduces latency -- but it also leaves one's design open to hacks. Worse, they implemented this design with an easy-to-defeat (or maybe nonexistant) check to ensure only non-hacked (or similarily hacked) clients are allowed to play together on their servers. Again, I can see the value in that as it fosters a community of hackers who enjoy seeing what they can make the clients do. Personally, I see fostering such communities of hackers as a good thing, but allowing them to intermix and play against users running unmodified clients without giving players a choice in the matter is a poor design choice -- it ruins the game for players running unmodified clients, as the OP expressed. There's no way to prevent any game from being hacked, but the solution isn't a SW one, its a psychological one -- foster a hack community by making it easy to hack, track the various hacks via some kind of free registration, then allow players to choose which hacks they're willing to play against. Sorry, I've rambled a bit.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
patbob wrote:
It means they chose to make each client responsible for the characteristics of its own projectiles with no server validation. I can see the reason for that kind of design -- it spreads more of the compute load onto the clients and reduces latency -- but it also leaves one's design open to hacks. Worse, they implemented this design with an easy-to-defeat (or maybe nonexistant) check to ensure only non-hacked (or similarily hacked) clients are allowed to play together on their servers.
Well, I think that's part of the problem. Comprehensive hack prevention get in the way of scalability and performance.
patbob wrote:
Personally, I see fostering such communities of hackers as a good thing, but allowing them to intermix and play against users running unmodified clients without giving players a choice in the matter is a poor design choice -- it ruins the game for players running unmodified clients, as the OP expressed.
That's an interesting idea but I think the point of the hacks are to play against unmodified clients. If everyone has the same advantage/disadvantages there is no reason to have a hack as the original client offers that out of the box. Part of the reason why I'm so tough on hackers is because they obviously have the skills necessary to make a living if they'd bat for the good guys. These aren't thugs with no education/chance at life - they are intelligent hard working people who need to learn how to play nice.
-
If it makes you feel better. If the risk of prison sentences, prevented crime, our prisons would be empty.
JackDingler wrote:
If the risk of prison sentences, prevented crime, our prisons would be empty.
Bumper stickers are a poor source for answers to serious questions. For example, the poor soul who authored your bumper sticker appears to be making an astute observation when in reality all he has done is proven that he has no idea why prisons exist. Prisons aren't a crime prevention device, but rather a means to segregate those from society who don't know how to behave.
-
Spell out where I'm misinterpreting and we'll discuss. In the absence of real arguments I have nothing to respond to other that to say you are accusing me of actions and intentions without any info to back it up. I'll place here what I've place in other forums: I can only go on what I see in your words, not in what you are thinking. My intention is to respond to what I see.. that is all. Personally I think forums are a difficult place to make complex arguments.. *but*.. some things are worth responding to and getting peoples assumptions and conclusions stated.. I've seen the position you've taken (that I originally responded to) stated in the past.. and it was worth responding to here and now.. hence my motivation to even post... Call me whatever name you wish, ascribe to me whatever motivation you wish, but the above is my real motivation in posting in this thread. I've seen many folks try to justify the production of malicious software with arguments that seem logical, until you dig a bit. So far your responses have been less rational and more aggressive.. 'troll', etc. I simply am expressing what I think is the truth about your original point.. If you have logical points, by all means make them and I'll respond as I see fit.
Well the crux of it is that writing software doesn't harm anyone .. yet. Using it might, so that is the actual problem. I reject the term "malicious software", it's just bytes, a number in a base 256 essentially - though it may be used with malicious intent.
richard_k wrote:
So far your responses have been less rational and more aggressive.. 'troll', etc.
Yes well so have yours, dismissing everything with arguments that are only tangentially related to my point.
-
Well the crux of it is that writing software doesn't harm anyone .. yet. Using it might, so that is the actual problem. I reject the term "malicious software", it's just bytes, a number in a base 256 essentially - though it may be used with malicious intent.
richard_k wrote:
So far your responses have been less rational and more aggressive.. 'troll', etc.
Yes well so have yours, dismissing everything with arguments that are only tangentially related to my point.
There have been virus's created in the past that were specifically meant to destroy hardware. This does property harm just as much as a vandal destroying/defacing property burning a house down. Its has a direct financial impact on someone. Most viruses cost money to fix and directly impact businesses, even without direct harm to hardware. That is still financial damage to a company.. and courts would see it that way too. That 'just bytes' DOES do harm. Either physical or financial.. but it is harm never the less.