These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is the guessing of a password on Eveboard illegal?

First post
Author
iskflakes
#141 - 2013-07-19 17:44:51 UTC
The white-knight space lawyers are out in force today.

The titan pilot posts his EVE API on a 3rd party website designed specifically for displaying API information publicly. He then uses 1234 as a password, and THEN posts that password on a public site. At this point EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD goes apeshit because one person decided to view this eveboard.

Anyway, you're all so mad about eveboard that you've forgotten to be mad about ISBOXER. I suggest you all go and make an ISBOXER thread, despite the fact that both ISBOXER and eveboard were just bling on this kill. The titan was doomed the moment he thought that "safe logoff" didn't apply to him -- if Rocket didn't get him, somebody else would have.

As always, good job Rocket.

-

dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#142 - 2013-07-19 17:47:16 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Schalac wrote:
If Rocket were to be arrested for this then the people that made the accusation should be fined as well for filing a false police report.

Let's just go ahead and arrest all of eve, m8


Monkeys see monkey do.... PL != of eve...

Meta gaming != hacking, troll all you want..

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2013-07-19 17:50:00 UTC
dexington wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Schalac wrote:
If Rocket were to be arrested for this then the people that made the accusation should be fined as well for filing a false police report.

Let's just go ahead and arrest all of eve, m8


Monkeys see monkey do.... PL != of eve...

Meta gaming != hacking, troll all you want..

Smashing keyboard with hamhands != comprehensible sentences

Would you be this buttdevastated and e-lawyery if he was still in PHEW and not PL?
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#144 - 2013-07-19 17:57:40 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
dexington wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Schalac wrote:
If Rocket were to be arrested for this then the people that made the accusation should be fined as well for filing a false police report.

Let's just go ahead and arrest all of eve, m8


Monkeys see monkey do.... PL != of eve...

Meta gaming != hacking, troll all you want..

Smashing keyboard with hamhands != comprehensible sentences

Would you be this buttdevastated and e-lawyery if he was still in PHEW and not PL?


you are the one saying no laws was broken, who is it exactly who is being the e-lawyery... look in the mirror...

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2013-07-19 18:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
What law does it break?
-The Computer Misuse Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990)


“The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom” …which has no jurisdiction over Swedish servers.



I would still reiterate the fact I did mention that the laws differ depending on where the servers are located(which doesn't mean they do not share the same laws although SOME laws like internet piracy are in fact different). I would also like t reiterate "I would only advise caution when trying to interpret the law for anyone questioning the validity of their conduct and take all considerations when doing something you think might not be okay to do." which I find odd you chose to leave that part out. It's still relevant.

Quote:
That's because he was trying to evade justice by fleeing the country where he was being accused of a crime.


...Yyyeessss..... that's what you do when you don't give up. You give chase.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Bluemelon
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#146 - 2013-07-19 18:03:18 UTC
Hi Guys,

Update from BOPE Corp

After Rocket X's arrest following this incident he has released a statement denying fully any of the accusations brought against him. His family and friends are beside him at this troubling time and he thanks you for all your good wishes.

-Blue

For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2013-07-19 18:04:03 UTC
Jayem See wrote:



I agree. Chribba should refund the poor chump.

Nice patience on the kill Rocket - gratz.

Fake Edit. Also - this thread was absolutely hilarious.



Oh I doubt Chribba would honor that petition. But still lol.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#148 - 2013-07-19 18:05:24 UTC
RoCkEt X wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Is accessing someone elses's account without their express permission illegal ? hmmm let me think about it .... err yes

Makes you think what other accounts he may try to access by guessing the password ?


Tal


Oh dear... you got issues son. :)



lol

Tal


Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#149 - 2013-07-19 18:05:27 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Sounds like Rocket x got the password from the application he sent in to PL. If he can see the password in the application it means that he was authorized to look at the account, therefore he broke no laws, he was authorized to look, anytime you give out free intel like that expect it to be used against you. That being said I have my characters up on eveboard as well so I don't see the issues, if someone wants to work that hard for a kill then they deserve it.



It read like he guessed at it though. Since that is what he typed. But since he clarified he did not see the pw, or access the app until AFTER the fact... well there ya go.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2013-07-19 18:05:27 UTC
dexington wrote:
you are the one saying no laws was broken, who is it exactly who is being the e-lawyery... look in the mirror...

Innocent til proven guilty dawg

Also, tell me how saying the issue is more complicated than you morons having some vague feeling that it's illegal saying that no laws were broken? Go on, I will wait for you.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#151 - 2013-07-19 18:06:43 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
The white-knight space lawyers are out in force today.

The titan pilot posts his EVE API on a 3rd party website designed specifically for displaying API information publicly.


And with passwords.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#152 - 2013-07-19 18:10:37 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
dexington wrote:
you are the one saying no laws was broken, who is it exactly who is being the e-lawyery... look in the mirror...

Innocent til proven guilty dawg


I live in Africa, are you talk in about the slave drivers laws?

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#153 - 2013-07-19 18:12:24 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Ace Uoweme wrote:

If it's hidden behind a password it isn't public, even if the player used a simple password, as the INTENT was to keep it out of sight.

If only it wasn't posted on a public board.... something something not a reasonable expectation of privacy *vaguely legal related words*

-9 billion einsteinbrains

zzzzz...



Unfortunately, if I were to post my SSN, that would not give you permission to acquire it by trying all the door handles to my house and reading it from the card inside that same house.

Sine he was able to kill the titan through legit ways, grats to him on his hunt.

Unfortunately, he TRIED to do it through nefarious ways, so boo to that.

Good thing that this is totes comparable to an SSN, the keys to your car, etc..

To be clear, I would download *your* car and vigorously stick my keys into it repeatedly and with reckless abandon while blaring your SSN over my sickass sound system wit da bass drops all up in that.



So you condone illegal activities. That sucks =(

To be clear, a player did something that he should not have.

To be clear, he quite succinctly said he did.

To be clear, he said he didn't even need the information he did access.



You know, to be clear.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2013-07-19 18:14:41 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
The white-knight space lawyers are out in force today.

The titan pilot posts his EVE API on a 3rd party website designed specifically for displaying API information publicly. He then uses 1234 as a password, and THEN posts that password on a public site. At this point EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD goes apeshit because one person decided to view this eveboard.

Anyway, you're all so mad about eveboard that you've forgotten to be mad about ISBOXER. I suggest you all go and make an ISBOXER thread, despite the fact that both ISBOXER and eveboard were just bling on this kill. The titan was doomed the moment he thought that "safe logoff" didn't apply to him -- if Rocket didn't get him, somebody else would have.

As always, good job Rocket.



Well, if you claim to have broken the law, I'm going to treat you like the piece of **** criminal you are bragging to be.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#155 - 2013-07-19 18:16:05 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
dexington wrote:
you are the one saying no laws was broken, who is it exactly who is being the e-lawyery... look in the mirror...

Innocent til proven guilty dawg

Also, tell me how saying the issue is more complicated than you morons having some vague feeling that it's illegal saying that no laws were broken? Go on, I will wait for you.



You are aware Rocket said he did it right?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Jorden Ishonen
Doomheim
#156 - 2013-07-19 18:16:22 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
HE'S ALREADY IN JAIL FOR HIS DASTARDLY DEEDS, HAVE SOME RESPECT YOU GODAWFUL PEOPLE

#freerocket


It's those damned cyber police

(they're so hot right now)
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#157 - 2013-07-19 18:17:25 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So you condone illegal activities. That sucks =(

To be clear, a player did something that he should not have.

To be clear, he quite succinctly said he did.

To be clear, he said he didn't even need the information he did access.



You know, to be clear.

To be clear, someone drove a forklift up your rearend.

To be clear, your familiarity with any country's law, let alone many countries' and on varying legal specialties, is fuckall and you're now talking through the resulting gaping wound.

To be clear, I downloaded the keys to that forklift, stuck them in til one worked, and am now inserting large numeric art sculptures back into the afforementioned gaping void in a series quite similar to your SSN.

Just ~bein' clear~
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#158 - 2013-07-19 18:24:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…and the other issue is one of assumed and implied consent. There are plenty of situations where the continued use could be reasonably assumed.

There are also numerous examples where access has been given once, and then been turned into effective ownership because the details of the initial verbal agreement can't be established.

You're confusing several different legal principles, and you've also confused civil and criminal procedure.

As an example for the car analogy, California makes the criminal aspect expressly clear: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d04/vc10851.htm. But we're not talking about cars.

To return to the matter at hand, if the person gave their password for the purpose of a background check for PL, then that is what he authorized -- a background check -- not continued monitoring or any other purpose. Here's a law blog article that explains some of the issues, I'm sure you can find other sources that delve into the legalese as well: http://massfamilylawblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/unathorized-access-to-email-results-in.html.

The key point from that article is: "Based on jury verdict, it appears that a use exceeding authorization constitutes an unathorized use under the statute. Furthermore, the context can establish the scope of permission. In this case, permission was granted to access an email account for performing work and obtaining information necessary for performing a job function. When the account was accessed four years later, the purpose was to obtain information to harm the owner of the email account and the employer. This was not a proper purpose.

Unless there is a written document establishing the scope of authorization for another's email account, the scope of any authorization should be limited to access for the benefit of the account holder. Any intentional access to obtain information to the detriment of the account holder should be considered unauthorized."

Location of the server doesn't matter, because the crime is access not trespass (which is what most of you are confusing it with, probably based on stories about hacking into a system).

Was the titan owner stupid? Most definitely. Is it likely this will ever see the inside of a courtroom? No. Could lawyers endlessly debate the minutiae of this particular case? You bet! That's what court cases are for, isn't it?

Bokononist

 

Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2013-07-19 18:34:22 UTC
Zaxix wrote:
Any intentional access to obtain information to the detriment of the account holder should be considered unauthorized."

I'm no big city lawyer but I believe you just soiled yer britches.



Man let's go comparing this to all kindsa ****, rather than facing the reality that we lack social skills and need to find a healthy hobby that doesn't permanently alienate us from people that might otherwise enjoy our company if only we'd step from the dark corners of our dingy, cheeto-hazed, redbull-can-filled, vaugely sperm-smelling rooms from which we wile away the hours furiously slapping out long diatribes about internet space pixels and the surrounding statutory and legal precedents.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2013-07-19 18:34:49 UTC
Zaxix wrote:
The key point from that article is: "Based on jury verdict, it appears that a use exceeding authorization constitutes an unathorized use under the statute. Furthermore, the context can establish the scope of permission. In this case, permission was granted to access an email account for performing work and obtaining information necessary for performing a job function. When the account was accessed four years later, the purpose was to obtain information to harm the owner of the email account and the employer. This was not a proper purpose.

Unless there is a written document establishing the scope of authorization for another's email account, the scope of any authorization should be limited to access for the benefit of the account holder. Any intentional access to obtain information to the detriment of the account holder should be considered unauthorized."


And that's due to the INTENT. In law INTENT means 2/3 of the body!

A person with a key or has access to another's property, the property owner can make conditions on it's use (like a contract). If someone commits an illegal activity due to access, it was not the INTENT of the owner (like stealing from the owner) since he didn't give the key or property to everyone to do as they please, just a select few for specific reasons.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell