[UPDATE] Man gets cyber crime charges for spamming twitch channels

[descendency]

Glad to see someone is finally cleaning up the worst part of Twitch. 

[AshleyAshes]

2 hours ago, SurvivorNVL said:

If he was linking to CP via his bot - he shouldn't be going to jail, he should be receiving quick, clean, cheap capital punishment.

...Canada abolished the death penalty in 1974...

[SurvivorNVL]

22 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

...Canada abolished the death penalty in 1974...

They definitely need to consider making some exceptions to that.

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

They definitely need to consider making some exceptions to that.

That would require the passing of sweeping legislation to modify the Canadian Criminal Code to pass, all to make you, someone who is not a Canadian citizen, happy.  You may find that efforts to pass such a bill to be difficult.

[JustAStrangeGeek]

4 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

In which case where do you lay fault the person who gave a command or the person that followed it?

Really? You never heard of that stuff happening, even though its so common?

 

One person in like every week commits suicide mainly because of cyberbullies telling them that 'they're not worth the little life that they have' and all that stuff.

[dalekphalm]

23 minutes ago, JustAStrangeGeek said:

Really? You never heard of that stuff happening, even though its so common?

 

One person in like every week commits suicide mainly because of cyberbullies telling them that 'they're not worth the little life that they have' and all that stuff.

Not to mention, yes, someone can be held liable from telling another person to commit the crime - especially if it could be argued that the person wouldn’t otherwise commit the crime. 

[Canada EH]

On 1/17/2018 at 11:58 AM, dalekphalm said:

reliable supply of Vanilla Coke

Candy Stores will have them!

Along with Cherry Coke cans, I think the plastic bottles are still in stores.

 

No charges laid for just telling someone to commit a crime.

You will get charged when you help them though, whether its driving them and knowing they are about to crime, especially in the usa. Or you can be charged if you influence them to commit crimes, lover quarrel type deal. Like telling them the guy beat the woman blah blah blah blah type.

[Hellion]

23 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

In Canada, there are limits to what you can say without facing consequences. 

 

But in any case, he’s not being charged with hate speech. He’s being charged (rightfully so) for a cyber crime. 

Which are what exactly? You can't objectively draw a line as to what is and isn't considered free speech. That's why twitch pushed for another bullshit charge to be laid instead.

 

Walls of text regardless of the content within them don't contribute to any valid criminal activity. Mischief normally indicates vandalism of some kind which digital text has no effect on. People became offended over what was contained in the spam and this is a guise to punish the one behind it while skirting around the violation committed upon his freedom of speech right.

 

Like I stated, this guy definitely deserved to be banned but the situation has no place being made into a legal matter.

 

Unfortunately the planet is full of a bunch of princess' that look for any reason to whine about what offends them. 

[Not_Sean]

God I'm so happy I didn't grow up with all this "Freedom", In Africa free speech is allowed, but you can't say whatever you want and hide behind a rule and say well I can call death to all jews as much as I want because it's my right, No that is hate speech, and fully punishable by law. not to mention the chances of you been slapped by a brick is pretty high. 

sorry, but for us, if you are a person yelling Hate speech especially Racial hate speech (With South Africa's past) you will be prosecuted because we don't need that kind of stuff in our country and don't believe we should just accept it because its "Free Speech" 

[suicidalfranco]

30 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

God I'm so happy I didn't grow up with all this "Freedom", In Africa free speech is allowed, but you can't say whatever you want and hide behind a rule and say well I can call death to all jews as much as I want because it's my right, No that is hate speech, and fully punishable by law. not to mention the chances of you been slapped by a brick is pretty high. 

sorry, but for us, if you are a person yelling Hate speech especially Racial hate speech (With South Africa's past) you will be prosecuted because we don't need that kind of stuff in our country and don't believe we should just accept it because its "Free Speech" 

please refrain from speaking for all of Africa, cause in Angola we most definitely are not that weak minded

[Not_Sean]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

please refrain from speaking for all of Africa, cause in Angola we most definitely are not that weak minded

ok, sorry. In South Africa. We have hate speech laws as we don't tolerate racial or Offensive speech. But in Angola they are not weak minded and you can Call for the death of all gays/jews/white/blacks

[suicidalfranco]

8 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

ok, sorry. In South Africa. We have hate speech laws as we don't tolerate racial or Offensive speech. But in Angola they are not weak minded and you can Call for the death of all gays/jews/white/blacks

We can, and we don't need to throw bricks or rocks, cause they're already doing a fine job ridiculing themselves. We got other things to worry about, like money right in now, then be fatally wounded by the words some bigot might spew.

[Clanscorpia]

On 1/16/2018 at 5:22 PM, Canada EH said:

I agree with that. Free speach is a fundamental right in Canada. Whether its hate speach or hippie love everyone speach.

Hahaha you are very wrong about that

[Clanscorpia]

42 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

God I'm so happy I didn't grow up with all this "Freedom", In Africa free speech is allowed, but you can't say whatever you want and hide behind a rule and say well I can call death to all jews as much as I want because it's my right, No that is hate speech, and fully punishable by law. not to mention the chances of you been slapped by a brick is pretty high. 

sorry, but for us, if you are a person yelling Hate speech especially Racial hate speech (With South Africa's past) you will be prosecuted because we don't need that kind of stuff in our country and don't believe we should just accept it because its "Free Speech" 

What defines hate speech? Someone cant decide what is and is acceptable or "hateful" to say or they will always always always abuse it.

[AshleyAshes]

54 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Which are what exactly? You can't objectively draw a line as to what is and isn't considered free speech. That's why twitch pushed for another bullshit charge to be laid instead.

 

Walls of text regardless of the content within them don't contribute to any valid criminal activity. Mischief normally indicates vandalism of some kind which digital text has no effect on.

Well, let's see what the Criminal Code of Canada says, shall we?

 

Quote

(1.1) Everyone commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or alters computer data;

(b) renders computer data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with a person in the lawful use of computer data or denies access to computer data to a person who is entitled to access to it.

 

In Twitch's own court filings:

Quote

At its peak, said Twitch in its court filings, chat channels were getting hit by up to 600 messages per minute.

 

In short, he constructed spam bots with the express purpose of rendering Twitch's chat rooms useless through a flood of spam message, and prevent other uses from making normal use of Twitch's system.  That easily falls under 'obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data'.

 

Certainly, that doesn't make him GUILTY.  We do have a criminal justice system and he will have his day in court with legal try try and defend himself... Or plead guilty and try to get probation or something (And that's what he'll PROBABLY do).  I'm sure that some of you would like to say 'Oh but the DATA wasn't changed' or focus on the usage of the word 'Data'.  You're taking it far too literally and that's why you don't have a nice job as a lawyer.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MafiaBoy

 

You can take a look at the 2001 case of Mafiaboy who launched a series of DoS attacks against many major services and more, rendering the sites useless at times, or, you know 'obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data' and 'denies access to computer data to a person who is entitled to access to it'.  He plead guilty.

 

The legal code and legal precedence are actually pretty clear.  So if you want to build a spam bot for the express purpose of flooding a system to prevent others fro making normal lawful use of that system... Maybe don't do that in Canada.

[Not_Sean]

10 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

What defines hate speech? Someone cant decide what is and is acceptable or "hateful" to say or they will always always always abuse it.

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

1. be hurtful;
2. be harmful or to incite harm;
3. promote or propagate hatred.

The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another") may also be used to prosecute hate speech

In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Hellion said:

Which are what exactly? You can't objectively draw a line as to what is and isn't considered free speech. That's why twitch pushed for another bullshit charge to be laid instead.

 

Walls of text regardless of the content within them don't contribute to any valid criminal activity. Mischief normally indicates vandalism of some kind which digital text has no effect on. People became offended over what was contained in the spam and this is a guise to punish the one behind it while skirting around the violation committed upon his freedom of speech right.

 

Like I stated, this guy definitely deserved to be banned but the situation has no place being made into a legal matter.

 

Unfortunately the planet is full of a bunch of princess' that look for any reason to whine about what offends them. 

See below. He quite clearly committed a crime in the Sovereign Nation of Canada.

 

The mischief was the act of intentionally rendering a part of the Twitch Service (chat) unusable to the rest of the users. That, by itself, is a cybercrime.

 

Now, as @AshleyAshes said, he'll get his chance in court, because Canada has a (relatively speaking) fair justice system. He'll get his chance to argue that "No sir! It really wasn't mischievous!"

 

And the courts will decide the rest.

 

As for what exactly are the lines between free speech and hate speech?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

Have at it. There's a lot of them. Each province or territory has their own laws or rules, but Canada as a whole, covers hate speech in several areas:

1. The Constitution:

Quote

The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[1] Section 2 of the Charter grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."[2]

I have underlined the appropriate restrictions that place limits on free speech.

 

2. The Criminal Code of Canada:

Quote

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

 

3. Canadian Human Rights Act

Quote

Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

 

And where I live:

4. Ontario

Quote

The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances.[31] An adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent: to pay monetary compensation to the complainant "including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; to make restitution to the complainant "including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; and to do anything that will rectify the respondent's violation of the Code. The majority of cases concerning violations of the Code are heard by the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

 

25 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Well, let's see what the Criminal Code of Canada says, shall we?

 

 

In Twitch's own court filings:

 

In short, he constructed spam bots with the express purpose of rendering Twitch's chat rooms useless through a flood of spam message, and prevent other uses from making normal use of Twitch's system.  That easily falls under 'obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data'.

 

Certainly, that doesn't make him GUILTY.  We do have a criminal justice system and he will have his day in court with legal try try and defend himself... Or plead guilty and try to get probation or something (And that's what he'll PROBABLY do).  I'm sure that some of you would like to say 'Oh but the DATA wasn't changed' or focus on the usage of the word 'Data'.  You're taking it far too literally and that's why you don't have a nice job as a lawyer.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MafiaBoy

 

You can take a look at the 2001 case of Mafiaboy who launched a series of DoS attacks against many major services and more, rendering the sites useless at times, or, you know 'obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data' and 'denies access to computer data to a person who is entitled to access to it'.  He plead guilty.

 

The legal code and legal precedence are actually pretty clear.  So if you want to build a spam bot for the express purpose of flooding a system to prevent others fro making normal lawful use of that system... Maybe don't do that in Canada.

All of this. Clearly, the man has violated Canadian Law. People can agree or disagree with whether or not they think free speech should allow him to do this criminal act or not, but in Canada, it's quite clear where the law stands.

 

Plus he's not being tried for Hate Speech anyway.

 

 

[Shakaza]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

So, from this, I can conclude that with the current legal system in Canada, someone cannot just go up to someone who said something they don't like and claim hate speech and instantly have the full force of the law bearing down upon them. Instead, it revolves around intent and context, which the accuser must prove in court, under the scrutiny of a jury of your peers who would have a more rational perspective because they weren't the ones insulted, hated on, etc., and wouldn't necessarily have the same agenda as you. Imagine that; it's not the apocalypse if you can't say whatever you want without consequences.

 

I can see some negative ramifications of such a system, however. In some cases, I can imagine that the evidence of an intent to harm is really nebulous, which stems from our subjectivity; one person may find a statement utterly heinous, while the next might find it completely innocuous. Such cases are probably pretty fringe, though. I'm having trouble thinking of an example, even. But, even in those cases, the system would probably work because, in most of those nebulous cases, it would be reasonable for the court to conclude that no harm was intended, and there would only be a few instances where the accuser is harmed with no negative consequences for the accused.

 

The system that the US uses is pretty good as well; being able to say what you want (with a few restrictions) without the government coming down on your head is...well, it's a freedom. Some people may find that that freedom is more important than saving some people from potential psychological harm(there are varying opinions about the impact of insults and stuff causing this sort of harm), and I think that's okay. The U.S. justice system does its job for the most part.

 

In short, I don't think either system is necessarily better than the other. They're just different.

[Clanscorpia]

1 hour ago, Not_Sean said:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

1. be hurtful;
2. be harmful or to incite harm;
3. promote or propagate hatred.

The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another") may also be used to prosecute hate speech

In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred

Those are extremely vague 

[AshleyAshes]

34 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

which the accuser must prove in court

...Which the prosecution must prove in court...

 

Criminal proceedings are not an accused vs an accuser.  They are the accused vs the government.  That's why literally very criminal case is titled '(Government) ., (Accused)'.  Be that 'The State Of New York v.', or 'v. The United States of America' or 'R v.' ('R' is short for 'Rex' or 'Regina' and refers to the currently sitting British Monarch and 'The Crown' which the monarch embodies.  You'll see this in most commonwealth nations)

 

34 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

under the scrutiny of a jury of your peers who would have a more rational perspective because they weren't the ones insulted, hated on, etc., and wouldn't necessarily have the same agenda as you. Imagine that; it's not the apocalypse if you can't say whatever you want without consequences

It would most likely be a bench trials.  Jury Trials are less frequent then most TV Drama's make one think and if the charges are severe enough to warrant a jury, the accused usually has say as to which they want.  A lot of lawyers will advice a bench trial because your 'peers' are also known as 'easily manipulated, stupid, emotional dumbfucks' and the cold analysis of a judge is usually easier to work with.

 

Probably Canada's most famous freedom of expression case was R v. Keegstra which set a lot of precedent as to how far freedom of expression can go in Canada and when threats to other freedoms can justify limitations on freedom of expression.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra

 

TLDR: Town Mayor and Social Studies teacher James Keegstra taught his class that the Jews faked the Holocaust and other typical antisemitic boiler plate.  Despite appeals all the way up to the supreme court, his conviction for promoting hatred against a group was upheld.  ...Also his mayoral re-election campaign didn't go so well...

 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

...Which the prosecution must prove in court...

 

Criminal proceedings are not an accused vs an accuser.  They are the accused vs the government.  That's why literally very criminal case is titled '(Government) ., (Accused)'.  Be that 'The State Of New York v.', or 'v. The United States of America' or 'R v.' ('R' is short for 'Rex' or 'Regina' and refers to the currently sitting British Monarch and 'The Crown' which the monarch embodies.  You'll see this in most commonwealth nations)

 

It would most likely be a bench trials.  Jury Trials are less frequent then most TV Drama's make one think and if the charges are severe enough to warrant a jury, the accused usually has say as to which they want.  A lot of lawyers will advice a bench trial because your 'peers' are also known as 'easily manipulated, stupid, emotional dumbfucks' and the cold analysis of a judge is usually easier to work with.

 

Probably Canada's most famous freedom of expression case was R v. Keegstra which set a lot of precedent as to how far freedom of expression can go in Canada and when threats to other freedoms can justify limitations on freedom of expression.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra

 

TLDR: Town Mayor and Social Studies teacher James Keegstra taught his class that the Jews faked the Holocaust and other typical antisemitic boiler plate.  Despite appeals all the way up to the supreme court, his conviction for promoting hatred against a group was upheld.  ...Also his mayoral re-election campaign didn't go so well...

 

Things like that give me hope for Canada still. At least anti-Semitic fucks can occasionally lose elections here

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Things like that give me hope for Canada still. At least anti-Semitic fucks can occasionally lose elections here

Yeah, it was like this small town in Alberta and he's making a Supreme Court case out of it.  It got a LOT of news headlines and basically a lot of attention that the town had NO interest in.  They sure as heck weren't going to vote back him in as mayor.

 

The thing dragged on over TEN YEARS from the initial charges to the final supreme court decision. And you know what the sentence even was?  It was one year suspended sentence (No prison time), one year probation, and 200hrs of community service.  ...Though he also TOTALLY lost his teaching job and found employment PRETTY difficult from then on.  But he was apparently OBSESSED with his conspiracy theory so I guess he wanted to go down fighting for it.  ...And down he went.  Stand On Guard For The.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Yeah, it was like this small town in Alberta and he's making a Supreme Court case out of it.  It got a LOT of news headlines and basically a lot of attention that the town had NO interest in.  They sure as heck weren't going to vote back him in as mayor.

 

The thing dragged on over TEN YEARS from the initial charges to the final supreme court decision. And you know what the sentence even was?  It was one year suspended sentence (No prison time), one year probation, and 200hrs of community service.  ...Though he also TOTALLY lost his teaching job and found employment PRETTY difficult from then on.  But he was apparently OBSESSED with his conspiracy theory so I guess he wanted to go down fighting for it.  ...And down he went.  Stand On Guard For The.

I was torn between giving you Funny rep vs Informative, but it's all a little too sad to laugh at.

 

You know what the worst part is? In a few more years, when the last of the holocaust survivors are dead, people like that racist asshole will have all the more ammunition to claim bullshit like "the holocaust was faked by jews".

[Shakaza]

32 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Those are extremely vague 

Can you elaborate further? The terms seem clear to me, but maybe an example would help. If I'm understanding Canadian law correctly, directing a statement like "You are a terrible and incredibly stupid person because you are black!" to a black person would be classified as hate speech and thus be illegal. In such a case, it would be relatively easy for a judge or jury to determine that the intent was to be hurtful to them. Note that it wouldn't be hate speech if it's not meant to be directed at anyone, such as if I created the statement as a demonstration of how the law works. I am...unsure if it would be hate speech, however, if it was directed at someone who isn't black. It would be incredibly confusing, but there may be other reasons for why one would say that in such a scenario. But, on the other hand, I don't think anyone in their right mind would do that, unless they are trying to highlight a fringe case that may prove problematic.

18 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

-snip-

Thanks for clearing that up.

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You know what the worst part is? In a few more years, when the last of the holocaust survivors are dead, people like that racist asshole will have all the more ammunition to claim bullshit like "the holocaust was faked by jews".

Yup.  And I even live next door to a synagogue.  In December I came out to catch the bus to see Toronto Police Service babysitting the place.  Turns out it was one of four synagogues that had gotten snail mail antisemitic threats the previous day.  ...and who sends threats by LETTER MAIL in 2018?