Real World Punishment For Cybercrime
I’m reading Gwyneth Lewellen’s latest post at the moment and have frozen at a point about 3/4 of the way down. Up to this point it’s been insightful, clever, and an interesting read. It may be a little myopic, as Gwyn has always been an unashamed head-over-heels fan of Linden Lab, but it’s good stuff.
But this part here… where she talks about griefers, and recommends a course of action:
The only effective way to deal with this kind of crime and vandalism is making an example: get the FBI to arrest a few cyberbullies and make a huge press release as an example. Getting ten years in jail for attacking a live concert with live penises floating around until a sim crashes is sure to make a point — “remember, you can be the next one”.
Wow.
What we’re talking about is taking somebody who made human anatomy appear in a public place and ruining their lives. No more friends, no more family, no more job - just forcible confinement and the company of people who want to hurt them for ten solid years. We’re talking about doing this, not because of their crime, but because it would “send a message”.
You know, like terrorism does.
June 18th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Hi, Onder, it’s funny to see your RL pic and all.
I think 10 years — or any “year” — is too harsh a punishment for that particular type of crime. I’m not sure she meant to tie event disruption with 10 years in the slammer.
But I do think it makes sense to treat virtual property as real property, and make it subject to torts law. It’s something like a denial of service attack. And worse, really. I think a fine of some kind would be in order.
But likely a better way to handle it is to have some kind of metaversal gaming/worlding commission that does this rather than RL police.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Hi Prok, I agree about the pic… still feels funny to me too.
I understand where you’re coming from with the comission, but there’s another possible take on it:
All you have to do to deal with MOST griefers is orbit them. One click on the HUD, one click on their name in the dialogue, bam, done. Most griefers don’t own the kind of shielding technology they’d need to defend themselves because that stuff costs some money and it’s no-transfer, and they plan on ditching this account eventually. So they’ll log out, log back in, complain, and you can do it again. It’s kind of fun.
When you get bored of it you ban them. After they spend a few minutes filling out forms and working their way back into SL you do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat. It’s all a bigger pain for them than it is for you, and eventually they learn that griefing gets real boring.
BOREDOM influences people much more than regulation!
Oh but wait… we’re not ALLOWED to do that. Because then in theory WE’RE greifing.
Hang theory though. Let’s stay practical about it.
The real issue is the AR system, which is totally gamed. They strike first, you strike back, they complain and somehow you’re paying the consequences. The thing is, even WITH a commission, that remains the scenario.
My opinion is simply that, for all practical purposes, we still have too much regulation. I’d just love to be allowed to deal with my own problems and mind my own business.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Ofph! Harsh. And obviously unworkable. Can you imagine the police’s reply to you when you reported that a pixel version of Cartman operated by a someone currently sat in a country on the other side of the world made you mad by using lots of dancing pixel pink oboes to log you out of a game you were playing. I can’t imagine they would be too sympathetic.
Still, I share her weariness with griefers – from the noobs with cageguns to the idiots who spoil mass events – but it will take a huge effort from the folks who own the game to stop them, if that is even possible. Nope, I’m afraid we are likely stuck with them.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Ten years is definitely a hyperbole
A few years ago, I had the pleasure to catch a spammer in the middle of the act. The most difficulty in catching spammers is that usually the country they’re in is not the same as the country they’re spamming; so, there is often no way to catch anyone.
This was different — someone advertising for mobile phone ringtones, and who was stupid enough to leave his contact on the message. After crashing with half of the Portuguese mailservers overnight (the Internet was small and not so robust back then), we got this guy’s contact, plus the logs from the mailservers (ours and from many companies and universities) and after filing a formal complain, we sent them to a few friends at the local equivalent of the FBI/Scotland Yard, where we had some good friends (we’re talking about computer-savvy engineers who happen to be police agents).
They knew the case was strong enough to get opened, but uninteresting enough to go to court. Although local laws dictated up to 5 years of arrest for spamming, no judge in court would condemn anyone for spamming (specially since back then, judges did not have email addresses; today, all courts around here get all data by email — there is no paper-pushing any more — so I expect that spamming cases get a lot more attention from the justice system than a decade ago).
So, the police agents just played a prank on this spammer. First, they called him on his mobile using their “police voice” and told him to present to the nearest station. As you might expect, this spammer was not a “hardened criminal” at all; he was, literally, scared shitless. He couldn’t refuse to appear.
Then the “scenario” was set up. As you might imagine, the Computer Crime Division is mostly, well, stereotyped geeks, and not impressive. So they enlisted the help of their colleagues from Vice
— tall, 2m high agents, with bulging muscles all over the place, and a smileless face. And then, while this spammer was on the waiting room for several hours, the play was started. First, yelling was heard in the interior, and weaklings were roughly handled as they left the “interrogation room”, all stepping in front of this guy (of course, these were the geeks from the computer crime division — but there was no way the spammer could know 
).
Finally it was his turn. He was already trembling in fear, and a few rough (but always polite!) calls for his name made him almost faint on the spot. He was brought in front of a chair in a room, a light shining in his eyes, just like on any movie you might have watched. A tall, huge, vast shadow depicted the immense size of the interrogation agent, who showed, in his manner, that he’s used to fight drug dealers and murderers every day.
Of course, again, this style of “intimidating environment” is ALSO not allowed on Portuguese police stations; but the spammer had just watched too many movies. He blabbered a few apologies, then saw the logs, then pleaded for innocence since he had no way of knowing he’d bring half the mailservers in the country down, then cried out, panicked, and confessed everything, asked for mercy… you can imagine the scene.
This was finished by having him taken away roughly and driven back to his home in a police car (also not usual — but he was probably thinking he was being driven away to rot in jail forever), since it was clear he was not in a fit condition for driving anyway — but of course this was used as a pretext later
The end of the story? Well, this guy got the scare of his life. He never spammed a single person again. He learned his ways and nevernevernever even thought of going through the same thing again. The police asked if we would like to continue to press charges against him but we felt that he had already learned his lesson, and dragging this through the slow Portuguese justice system would be a waste of time anyway, and probably have too high costs to bother (ie. pushing for a monetary compensation for blocking half the country’s mail system would be way hard to estimate for a judge without a clue about computers).
So this is basically my point of view. Not necessarily shackle these guys with handcuffs and drag them to a cell for a decade, having them repent for their sins or something, but make an example. Some groups are organised bullies, and they encourage others to join them, because they know that nobody does anything against them. The feeling of “freedom to bother others” without taking responsability is way too alluring for them not to try and try and try — and after a while, they see that the group leaders were not lying: they can do whatever they please, nobody will ever bother them!
Now imagine the pimpled teenager/young adult behind his computer, feeling like an overlord overseeing his dominion of cowed citizens, and having thbe FBI knocking loudly at their door. When he opens it, he can’t believe his eyes: a whole team of assault vehicles and armored policemen with guns are ready to enter his home and seize his most valued property: his computer. He’d be scared shitless. A round of “interrogation” at a police station, a night in jail, while the agents, with poker faces, demand that he lists all his “buddy bullies”, will do wonders. He might get released the next day very early in the morning saying that nobody is going to press charges on him since he was so cooperative with the police. What do you think he’ll do?… log in as soon as possible, and warn all his friends, who will be even more scared…
Well, I really don’t condemn “police brutality” or “terror tactics” or anything of the sort. The truth is, however, they work psychologically, if you know you’re not innocent. Most of these young adults simply have way too much time on their hands, and were never properly educated by their parents to accept responsabilities for their acts, and so they don’t know better. They might have even been physically bullied at school — and just see cyberbullying as a way to “revenge” themselves upon others. So, they need a lesson they don’t forget easily. Probably a night in a police station, not knowing what will happen, and fully knowing that they have just “given away” the names and addresses of all their friends… is more than enough to get them thinking twice of risking to engage in griefing again. Even without fines, going to a trial (which would be wasting taxpayers’ money on such a “small” offense) and all that. Just making them seriously think of the consequences might be more than enough.
Prokofy if definitely right: coordinated groups of cyberbullies, griefers, crackers are a form of denial of service… take it from what angle you wish, they’re commiting crimes, under almost any jurisdiction. Sure, it’s not mass murder or terrorism or traffic in drugs or firearms; but it should still be addressed as a “crime”, no matter how likely it is that they’d be released without even a word or a criminal record afterwards.
Prevention is half the work of dealing with criminals.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Man, there are two griefers I know who hang around an old welcome area and make the lives of brand new newbies a total misery. I would pay good RL money to see that hapen to them.