Home
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
10:30:25 PM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Website Feedback
Website Feedback
Forums | Website Feedback Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page 
Two accounts, mine is banned, my brother's is not?
pappes 
1/8/08 8:27:20 AM
Titan

Quote by Skull
Quote by pappes

Then you got to jail for unauthorised access to a computer network.
..

Next question?



I am just talking in terms of Spamming up the forums


So was I!

When you create an account you are implicitly given authorisation to post. When you are banned, you are explicitly denied authorisation to post.

Subsequent account creation is unauthorised use of the website, so even if you do it from an internet cafe, the maximum penalty is a jail term.


Edited by pappes: 1/8/2008 8:28:40 AM

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

1shot1kill 
3/8/08 9:54:14 PM
SuperHero
Colossus


Quote by pappes
Then you got to jail for unauthorised access to a computer network.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s308h.html
http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?rank=find&criteria=AND~%22unauthorised%20access,%20modi
http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=PAC/19950012/Sch-Ch10-Pt10.7-Div476-476.2
http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2004/STATUTES%20AMENDMENT%20(COMPUTER%20OFFENCES)%20ACT%2
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/nswbills.nsf/1d4800a7a88cc2abca256e9800121f01/de65
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/comact/11/6458/pdf/161of2001.pdf


Next question?



Is that before or after a trial?

-----
Harden up, BITCHES!!

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

It's still rocket surgery. I just make it look easy, is all.

TheSecret 
8/8/08 9:21:09 PM
Master
pappes,

It is not as clearcut as that. It could be argued that implicit permissions are granted and denied for a user account, not an individual entity. Certainly there would bo no jail term, or even any charge brought, as the website invites you to access it. Furthermore none of the links you posted are relevant, and would have to bery loosly interpreted to stretch to the situation you are describing.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

Meeko 
9/8/08 12:09:52 AM
Titan

One of these days the number of banned Atomicans will exceed the number of active Atomicans.

-----

pappes 
9/8/08 11:03:53 AM
Titan

Quote by TheSecret
pappes,

It is not as clearcut as that. It could be argued that implicit permissions are granted and denied for a user account, not an individual entity. Certainly there would bo no jail term, or even any charge brought, as the website invites you to access it. Furthermore none of the links you posted are relevant, and would have to bery loosly interpreted to stretch to the situation you are describing.



As per the terms and conditions which you must agree to before posting:

3. Use of the Haymarket Sites and the Community Areas.
A. The Community Areas shall be used for lawful purposes only. No material shall be posted on or transmitted through the Community Areas which violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, vulgar, obscene, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable , which encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any law. No conduct shall be undertaken that, in Haymarket 's judgment, restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying the Community Areas. Advertising or commercial solicitation may be posted on or transmitted through the Community Areas but only with Haymarket 's express prior approval and only if the advertising or commercial solicitation complies with all conditions imposed by Haymarket.


emphasis mine

The implicit authorisation explicitly rules out all conduct that would prevent others from enjoying the facilities. If the moderators don't enjoy hunting down and killing off banned members then you have violated the T&C and hence are intentionally conducting unauthorised modification of restricted data.

The T&C also explicitly state that the site falls under the laws of NSW.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s308h.html
"Unauthorised ... modification of restricted data held in computer"
Any person who has been banned from atomic and returns without explicit permission breaks this law every time they post or edit a post.
Modification = post or send PM
Restricted data = need to log on first (see paragraph 3 of link)
held in a computer = held on a computer(server) hard drive

"A person:
(a) who causes any unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer, and
(b) who knows that the access or modification is unauthorised, and
(c) who intends to cause that access or modification,
is guilty of an offence"

It is the person who is guilty of the offence, not the account.
(a)If a person is not obeying the T&C they are not authorised to post. If a person has been banned, they are denied authorisation to post.
(b)Unless they are mentally deficient, they know they have agreed to the T&C PLUS they know they have been banned.
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/banned.asp
(c)Accidents happen, people do strange things when sleep walking, are you persuasive enough to convince a judge* that you logged in, typed up a post and hit the post message button by accident?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence

Something as simple as a banned person, will not go to court. Haymarket don't want to spend money on lawyers. There are simpler ways (continually banning new accounts, interaction with ISPs, calling up your parents and telling them that you are breaking the law, legal threats, having David Hollingworth come around and do a dump on your front door)to make you stop.

But if someone wants to see what the limits are, 2 years per offence is a significant disincentive.


>>It could be argued that implicit permissions are granted and denied for a user account, not an individual entity.
The person agrees to the T&C not the account

>>...as the website invites you to access it.
so long as you agree to and obey the T&C

>>Furthermore none of the links you posted are relevant
Are you in Australia?


OH and the T&C allows for more rules than stated in the T&C
"Haymarket shall have the right ... or other terms and conditions applicable to your use of the Subscription or to impose new terms and conditions."
Hence a direction form a mod, an email from David Hollingworth, a letter from a lawyer or the banning of a person becomes an extension of the T&C.

Also ignorance is bliss. Allow me to burst you bliss bubble
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:h4ebbjBqsmwJ:www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp%3Fs%3D1%26c%3D4
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ipXYkQBmCIYJ:www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp%3Fs%3D1%26c%3D4
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:iBBuDHG9HzMJ:www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp%3Fs%3D1%26c%3D4
those are 3 clear indications from mods that being "alt of a banned member" is not acceptable conduct and that once a member is banned they are not allowed to create an alt (alternate identity/alternate account) and come back to atomic.

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
10/8/08 4:40:33 AM
Primarch
Pappes,

The terms and conditions are not as binding as you think, nor they are a steadfast contract, and would not hold up in court the way you think they would. Nor is that their purpose, they are here so the staff can refer to them after taking action if need be, and other similar reasons.

The 2 years per offence you refer to, is not for signing up for an account on a forum where a previous account was banned. By your logic, most people on this forum who have broken at least one of the terms would be up for at least 2 years. That is simply incorrect.

The person agrees to the T&C in relation to a specific account. My location is irrelivant, I studied law in australia, and know what I am talking about. You are interpreting law enacted in relation to what most people call hacking, as being able to be applied to signing up for an account on a website where you are invited to do so.

That is a good example of why the T&C are not a contract, and not enforceable in the way you imagine. Once a contract is changed, ie having new terms stated within, it becomes a new and different contract, which is not necessarily agreed to, regardless of if the contract states the contract maker can do this.

I am not arguing that it is unacceptable to making a new account if you have been banned, just that doing so will result in jail time. Your links are still irrelevant, and unable to burst your imaginary bubble.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
10/8/08 12:18:28 PM
Titan

The terms and conditons are the conditions by which Haymarket crants people access to post content on the site. They are not a contract because haymarket can at any point in time and without reason deny you permission to post on the site. The site has been built with aceess controls built in to guraentee Haymart the ability to deny access.

If you are posting after having been denied permission the the post is explicitly unathorised.

I agree the laws I quoted were intended for hacking but they languauge used pervents "Unauthorised ... modification of restricted data held in computer"

Lets look at it form a non-computer aspect.
If I go down to the locall pub, act like a tard they throw me out.
I do it again the next night they throw me out again.
I do it again the next night they ban me for life.

If I go back the next night then I am trespassing and can be charged with tresspassing. Even if I go back a year later, there is a new bouncer on the door who lets me in, I am stll treespassing because the owner has denied me access.

Just because atomic has an automated sign-up process does not give perpetual licence to continue to create accounts after you have been banned. If you have recied an email or a letter form the site operators specifically telling you not to create accounts, then by continueing to create accounts you are breaking that law for evey post you make.

>>The person agrees to the T&C in relation to a specific account.
I provided 3 specific instances wher the site autorities stated in clear and unequivical terms that poeple who have a banned acount are denied access to post under any account. This calrification from the site authorities would serve as an extension of the T&C for anyone who has read the posts by the mods.

The LAW does not talk about accounts, it talks about persons.

I would be very interested to see anyone justify how a banning does not apply to a person in the context of those 2 facts.

>>The 2 years per offence you refer to, is not for signing up for an account on a forum where a previous account was banned.
Please read my previous post again. The law is not for signing up for an account, it is for "Unauthorised ... modification of restricted data held in computer" AKA posting and PMing.

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
11/8/08 2:56:33 AM
Primarch
What you are saying, is what you would have to argue in court, and as far as the law currently stands, your arguments would fall flat. I am not saying you are looking at it the wrong way with your metaphors, just that you can not interpret the law with them like that. You already admitted that the laws you cited are not the what you tried to stretch them to be, and so far you have not stretched them convincingly enough.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
11/8/08 8:35:18 AM
Titan

The initent of the law is to prevent ahcking.

The workding of the law is to prevent unathorised modification of data.

I have still to see any arguments as to why the law can not be applied in that way for repeated, intentional perpetrators

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
11/8/08 9:08:09 AM
Primarch
It is all because of it being unclear how binding the terms and conditions are*, to what extent it applies to the person and not the account*, the fact that atomic invites you to make a new user account, it could be argued encourages*. Also because there is absolutely no unauthorized modification of date taking place, only the creation of new data. You would have t argue that logging in was unauthorized access to data, but since you can browse the forums without an account, it would not hold.*



* For interpretation in a court of law, which is very different from debating between two people.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

TinBane 
11/8/08 9:22:55 AM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


Sorry, I'll just jump in at this point. Creating new data is still unauthorised modification of data. I believe there is legal precedent in the US, for DOS attacks based on forcing data onto a server till it chokes on it.

I'm not a lawyer, and quite frankly, I doubt we'll ever have to go down the path of pursuing someone legally. I hope not.

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by MrFriendly
"Will laser burn body for clothes"



TheSecret 
11/8/08 10:22:04 AM
Primarch
TinBane,

I doubt that it would be legally tested as well, but it is an interesting discussion. I am not aware of any US Precedents treating a DOS attack as unauthorized modification of data, and could not find one, do you have a link?

Even so, it would be unclear if an Australian court would accept it. It would depend on which court, and any other relevant Australian precedents.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
11/8/08 1:21:05 PM
Titan

>>unclear how binding the terms and conditions are
agreed they are not 100% clear

> to what extent it applies to the person and not the account
I provided 3 links (I can dig up many more) that uneqivically state the rules apply to a person and not an account. Beyond that I coulds also post the contents of a PM that clarifys atomics position on this but shall not for self preservation reasons.

>>the fact that atomic invites you to make a new user account
Can you please calrify this as I am unaware of what format the invitation is made.

>>absolutely no unauthorized modification of date taking place, only the creation of new data
as per TinBane I disgree.
Every post causes modification of the forums index.
Evey PM casuses modification of the PM inbox of the recipient.
Every post and PM take up space on the server.
The argument that putting data into previously empty sections of a hard drive is is not modification is true only up to a point. THe empty sections of the hard drive are not a void. You are putting 0'1 and 1's where previously only 0's were before*. This is still modification. Asuing atomic was using flat files for data storage of every post, the directory entries would still be updated to reflect this. The fact is Atomic does not use falt files, it uses an SQL server database. If you want me to I could go on in deatil about the internals of an SQL database but suffice to say any new data added to the database is asolutly a modification of data in the database.

>>You would have to argue that logging in was unauthorized access to data
I would argue that logging in is not intentional "modification of restricted data held in computer". I can in more detail if you would like.

You still haven't touched on the legal aspects of why posting is not against that law.

*The area being written to may not be all 0's if it has not been initialised as thus.



P.S. good topic

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TinBane 
11/8/08 5:36:50 PM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
TinBane,

I doubt that it would be legally tested as well, but it is an interesting discussion. I am not aware of any US Precedents treating a DOS attack as unauthorized modification of data, and could not find one, do you have a link?

Even so, it would be unclear if an Australian court would accept it. It would depend on which court, and any other relevant Australian precedents.



I'll have a look. I read it in a digest from a friend who is studying law and into cyber-crime type stuff. Not sure if it was reported in any detail. Anyway, this hacker basically argued that he was just filling up empty space, rather than trying to knock the existing data on the head, but it was ruled (AFAIK) that it was still illegal.

Most likely being American, it would be of next to no use in Australia. In fact, the similarities aren't that great, because you can't argue that single posts are really denial of service. Maybe a sever spam attack, but not just 'still posting'.

The fact of the matter is that a stern letter from a lawyer is going to freak the shit out of any ISP, and probably cause them to warn the user, rather than risk the possibility of there merest hint of legal culpability.

In any event, I hope it is never a question that needs to be asked, or a measure that needs to be considered.

Most atomicans get it. If you get banned, you might get back in, circumstances permitting. If you shit on atomic and try and sneak back in, that likelihood diminishes.

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by MrFriendly
"Will laser burn body for clothes"



TheSecret 
11/8/08 6:32:22 PM
Primarch
TinBane,

I agree with you completely, and I think this is just an interesting talk. It has almost nothing to do with atomic, apart from being used as an example.

Pappes,

I don´t understand what you mean when I have not touched upon the legal aspects. That is all I have been doing. Do you mean you want me to find you specific cases? Another reason those laws would not apply is that making a new user account is most likely a civil, and not a criminal offence.

None of the links you posted explicitly show the terms and conditions of atomic complimenting a law binding a user account to a person. Perhaps you can show point out that link again. Keep in mind, actually proving a user account is tied to a person would not be a very easy task.

The invitation I speak of is if you browser the site not logged in, you can click on the new user account and sign up. There are precedents(not sure about australian or american) that have ruled this to be the case sometimes. For criminal acts however, at the most it only provides a slight reduction of penalty.

As for modification of data/creating new data..., that is a tricky point. I would argue that data refers not just to random bits and bytes, but information created by humans for machines or humans to interpret, or ifnormation provided by machines for humans to intepret(at least eventually), such as logs. The law is deliberatly abstract, and could be intepreted in the way either of us describe..that would depend on who is the better lawyer. However, if my interpretation was held, then there would not be any modification of data taking place.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
11/8/08 8:22:19 PM
Titan

>>I don´t understand what you mean when I have not touched upon the legal aspects
I quoted a specific law and explained it section by section. You have stated that it does not apply but not why it does not apply.

So far we have 2 parts to clarify, is posting modification of data and does the invitation to join superceed the banning.

I am not a law student so I do not understand "most likely a civil, and not a criminal offence". I quoted a specific law and if that law has been broken then a summary offence has been commited.

"modification of data"
This is going to get technical so bare with me.
Atomic is based on an SQL server database. This database will stoer 1 record per account, 1 record per PM and 1 record per post. There will be others as well such as 1 record per thread and 1 record per subforum but I do not have those details.

So each post creates an additional record in the database. with each reord created there are other processes that are run. The total post count is updated for the user. The last post date is updated on http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp an rss feed to google is updated. These are updates that happen to other records in the database. There are also indexes on each of the tables. at a minimum there are indexes on the primaryb key of the record but there are probably also indexes on author and post date and other fields within tha record.
Then we get down to the data storage. An sql database is stored in one (or more) datafiles. This data file will contain all the records in all the tables as well as the indexes, etc.
There will also be redo logs and possably even synchronised databases.
This is without even getting into the backups and SAN storage.
Just because you are not corrupting information, does not exempt you from modifying information.
Plus the law does not state that you are using malicious tools, just that the modification is unathorised.



"invitation to join"
In my example previously I spoke of being banned from a venue. If I subsequently walk past that venue and the boucer says "come on in" then I could resonably interpret that as an invitation.
Atomic has the ability to create accounts but I have seen nothing yet that suggest that users are being enticed to "come join up".


>>None of the links you posted explicitly show the terms and conditions of atomic complimenting a law binding a user account to a person.
I am not sure they need to. AFAIK legally only a person or a registered company can enter into an agreement. Atomic is the private property of Haymaket (they bought it from AJB) and Haymarket has exclusive right to determine who is authorised to post and who is denied authorisation. Any user who has been told by a mod how to conduct themselves by a mod needs to obey that instruction regardless of the T&C(unless subsequently overridden).

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
11/8/08 8:41:02 PM
Primarch
pappes,

I don't mean to appear rude, but if you don not understand the difference between civil and criminal law and offences, how can you participate in this debate?

I did reply to the laws you posted, not each law individually, but I pointed out why all of them did not apply.

I understand the technicalities of how an SQL database works, but as I stated previously, the law is deliberatly abstract, and data would not have to mean data in the most technical sense. This is something that would have to be argued in court, not on technical merrits. As I stated in my previous post, if you interpret data in the way I said, then no modification is taking place.

I never said entice, I said invite. An example would be getting boucned from a club, the bouncer not being there for some reason, or a different bouncer having taken over, and being allowed entry again, because a club is an implied invitation to enter. Not an automatic acceptance(which the atomic forums do have) or enticement, but an invitation. If that case, the club could not take any legal action against the patron who came back, except to have them removed which is their right. They could also get a restraining order, which is something similar atomic would do.

The links to laws you provide should back up what you are asserting, or at least show a flow of logic how they support your interpretation. Atomic has a blacklist, which means anyyone is allowed to sign up and make use of the forums until an account is banned. Since an account can be quite anonymous, it could be hard to tie it to an individual , and as soon as aid individual cmes back to the site, they can simply sign up for a new user account, and have an implied permission to post.

In reality, continued unwanted creation of user accounts by one individual would come under a spam law, not a hacking law, which would be much easier to argue.



Edited by TheSecret: 11/8/2008 8:44:54 PM

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

1shot1kill 
11/8/08 9:03:08 PM
SuperHero
Colossus


Quote by pappes
I am not a law student so I do not understand "most likely a civil, and not a criminal offence". I quoted a specific law and if that law has been broken then a summary offence has been commited.



Hang on just a damn minute. Earlier on, you said that posting while banned will attract a two year prison term. Now you're saying that doing so is a summary offense. Which is it?

-----
Harden up, BITCHES!!

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

It's still rocket surgery. I just make it look easy, is all.

pappes 
11/8/08 9:51:18 PM
Titan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence

>>In reality, continued unwanted creation of user accounts by one individual would come under a spam law, not a hacking law, which would be much easier to argue.
please tell me where thias law mentions hacking
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s308h.html

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
11/8/08 10:15:19 PM
Primarch
pappes,

You are not addressing any points I made. Since you don't have a clear understanding of the law, I won't continue to argue this unless you can start to show evidence, which does not mean links to laws you have loosley interpreted.

I used the word hacking because you yourself had used it, and it is a slang term for unauthorized access.

The Spam act law from 2003 has a higher jurusdiction, and is far easier to apply, as it deal explicitly with unauthorized electronic messages, as opposed to unauthorized access, which is more of a grey area in this hypothetical scenario.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  | Next Page 
Forums | Website Feedback