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

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, Streetguru said:

 

Targeted Harassment, that's likely personal, malicious, and repeated should clearly be illegal or have some form of punishment.

But aside from that as above with hate symbols that's very easy target to say it shouldn't be allowed. What happens past that? How far does it go and who exactly gets to decide what people can or cannot say?


Reminds of that whole thing with Jordan Peterson, where correct me if I'm wrong, but a bill was going to be pass and/or was passed that may or may not make it illegal to not call someone by their preferred pronouns, where it would potentially fall under hate speech requiring you to pay a fine or face jail time? In canada anyways.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use

Should you be a decent human being yes, clearly, should the government need to be involved in policing speech even when it's vile? No, not in most cases. The governments job is not to protect feelings, There should be a universal right to free speech, but there shouldn't be any right not to be offended.

If such a law ("policing" pronoun use) was deemed to violate your right to free speech, the law would get struck down in the courts.

 

Now, I don't recall Bill C-16 well, so I really can't comment on whether it's a good idea or not.

 

But lots of bad bills try to get passed, in just about every country. The Canadian Constitution does a damn good job of ensuring Canadian's rights, including free speech.

 

But free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to be a racist, bigot, asshole piece of shit. (Edit for clarification: I'm not calling you specifically these things, I'm just making a point and saying that free speech doesn't protect people who want to be racist fucks).

[Streetguru]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

But free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to be a racist, bigot, asshole piece of shit.

That's exactly what it means because it protects everyone's speech and prevents government's from policing the thoughts of it's citizens even when most people aren't going to agree with the racists, ect. It's going to be a sad day if we all wind up like the UK and have police actively searching for thought crimes on social media, or banning certain types of porn(between consenting adults) like they did.

[M300843499]

Well 10 years of getting dicked down by some massive black man in jail may turn his mind around for release day.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Streetguru said:

That's exactly what it means because it protects everyone's speech and prevents government's from policing the thoughts of it's citizens even when most people aren't going to agree with the racists, ect. It's going to be a sad day if we all wind up like the UK and have police actively searching for thought crimes on social media, or banning certain types of porn(between consenting adults) like they did.

No - it might mean that in the US. But in Canada, we've decided that just because we guarantee certain rights to free speech, those rights END when you cross the line into hate speech against another person.

[Stefan1024]

On 16.1.2018 at 10:54 PM, SC2Mitch said:

... included racial and antisemitic slurs ...

.... send offensive messages to Twitch ...

... destroy or simply demolish ...

... Some messages linked to sexual content ....

...  racist shit ...

... kinda sad ....

So, Trump is finally getting shut down? Good!

 

... Oh, wait, looks like some people are more equal then others!

 

So sad!

 

(I know it's twitch and not twitter.)

[Dezz]

I think the title should be Twitch presses charges against Apple 

[Spenser1337]

On 1/23/2018 at 12:45 PM, dalekphalm said:

If such a law ("policing" pronoun use) was deemed to violate your right to free speech, the law would get struck down in the courts.

 

Now, I don't recall Bill C-16 well, so I really can't comment on whether it's a good idea or not.

 

But lots of bad bills try to get passed, in just about every country. The Canadian Constitution does a damn good job of ensuring Canadian's rights, including free speech.

 

But free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to be a racist, bigot, asshole piece of shit. (Edit for clarification: I'm not calling you specifically these things, I'm just making a point and saying that free speech doesn't protect people who want to be racist fucks).

So it’s just not free speech 

[Fetzie]

On 16/01/2018 at 11:37 PM, Streetguru said:

You haven't been following the Count Dankula story? Man turned his girlfriend's pug into a nazi that responds to...certain phrases. Faces potential jail time. Trail keeps getting delayed as well.

"Count Dankula"?!

 

He should get jail time just for having that name.

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

So it’s just not free speech 

You can't just say "lol it's just not free speech".

 

Give me a real argument as to why you think I'm wrong. Elaborate. Explain. Go into detail.

 

Free Speech isn't some magical thing that allows you to say absolutely anything you want. Even in precious America, there are limits to Free Speech (inciting direct harm, etc).

 

So, we've already came to the conclusion that basically all societies, even freedom loving America, are willing to draw a line somewhere. So, where the line gets drawn is ultimately the argument here.

 

We, in Canada, believe that asshole racist pieces of fucking shit, don't deserve the right to abuse free speech and say harmful things to others. If you're not a racist, bigoted, asshole piece of shit, then you won't have any issues with Free Speech in Canada, because you won't be violating the laws against Hate Speech. However, if someone decides to cross that line into actual Hate Speech? I have no sympathy for them. They are no longer using Free Speech. They are abusing it.

[hobobobo]

It seems the whole case just hangs on CP links coz the other stuff hardly warrants jail time.

The whole offensive/hurtfull speech is just plain ridiculous. If you want to jail someone for saying "all *insertanygrouphere* are stupid/useless/whatever" - prove that the message is actually demonstrably false and has wide enough reach to persuade some gullible people otherwise. Bringing feelings into legal system is beyond retardation, those cant be quantified and inspected without bias. There was a funny case in Russia where one famous webdesigner/blogger wrote "there is no god" on his lj and got fined for hurting the feelings of the belivers by not using capital G in god. Imo its the perfect example of abuse of legislation designed to protect feelings of a group.

 

Feelings dont matter, facts do. Any system built on the importance of feelings is bound to devour itself.

And, in my perhaps stupid opinion, charging someone with a crime of "leading to potential harm" is not just stupid but dangerous. God, there were alot of things wrong with the good old USSR, but at least they put facts and objective reality in the forefront of their desicion making, not pandering to the lowest common denominator, which feelings, without argument, are.

 

 

And hey, Western world seems to be more commie then USSR ever was, considering that the law is viewing people more and more as groups, not as individuals

[AlTech]

Just to update @SC2Mitch The guy has been officially arrested by BC police in case you'd like to add that to the OP.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

It seems the whole case just hangs on CP links coz the other stuff hardly warrants jail time.

The whole offensive/hurtfull speech is just plain ridiculous. If you want to jail someone for saying "all *insertanygrouphere* are stupid/useless/whatever" - prove that the message is actually demonstrably false and has wide enough reach to persuade some gullible people otherwise. Bringing feelings into legal system is beyond retardation, those cant be quantified and inspected without bias. There was a funny case in Russia where one famous webdesigner/blogger wrote "there is no god" on his lj and got fined for hurting the feelings of the belivers by not using capital G in god.

 

Feelings dont matter, facts do. Any system built on the importance of feelings is bound to devour itself.

And, in my perhaps stupid opinion, charging someone with a crime of "leading to potential harm" is not just stupid but dangerous. God, there were alot of things wrong with the good old USSR, but at least they put facts and objective reality in the forefront of their desicion making, not pandering to the lowest common denominator, which feelings, without argument, are.

The man isn't being charged for Hate Speech. Even the "CP" is hardly of importance to the case, as he's not being charged with any "CP" related crime, either.

 

He's being charged for essentially disrupting a computer system (The Twitch Chat, in this case) - it's a "malicious" cyber crime.

 

7 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Just to update @SC2Mitch The guy has been officially arrested by BC police in case you'd like to add that to the OP.

You should link your source, since the OP can't just take your word on that without a link for the first post.

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The man isn't being charged for Hate Speech. Even the "CP" is hardly of importance to the case, as he's not being charged with any "CP" related crime, either.

 

He's being charged for essentially disrupting a computer system (The Twitch Chat, in this case) - it's a "malicious" cyber crime.

 

You should link your source, since the OP can't just take your word on that without a link for the first post.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAU9gMcGhO8

[ItsMitch]

12 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Just to update @SC2Mitch The guy has been officially arrested by BC police in case you'd like to add that to the OP.

ok

[hobobobo]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

The man isn't being charged for Hate Speech. Even the "CP" is hardly of importance to the case, as he's not being charged with any "CP" related crime, either.

 

He's being charged for essentially disrupting a computer system (The Twitch Chat, in this case) - it's a "malicious" cyber crime.

Well, I guess Id fail reading comprehension if i were to take it again) This way it seems the "disruption of a computer system" is kinda unrefined law, since, as far as i understood, spamming Twitch chat (with the aid of purpose-built software) is more or less the same crime as a large-scale attack on a network, like the WannaCry thingy.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Well, I guess Id fail reading comprehension if i were to take it again) This way it seems the "disruption of a computer system" is kinda unrefined law, since, as far as i understood, spamming Twitch chat (with the aid of purpose-built software) is more or less the same crime as a large-scale attack on a network, like the WannaCry thingy.

Yep.

 

Just like if I rob a 7-11 for $300 cash, it's the same crime as if I rob a pawn shop for $10,000 (Yes I know some crimes are separated by how much value is stolen/affected, etc).

 

Laws have scales, and the punishments vary, depending on the severity of the crime. I fail to see how that's a problem.

 

He's not gonna get the same punishment as someone who large-scale DDOS's an entire service like XBOX Live.

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Yep.

 

Just like if I rob a 7-11 for $300 cash, it's the same crime as if I rob a pawn shop for $10,000.

 

Laws have scales, and the punishments vary, depending on the severity of the crime. I fail to see how that's a problem.

 

He's not gonna get the same punishment as someone who large-scale DDOS's an entire service like XBOX Live.

Dunno, there is reason that there is theft and grand theft. One is a petty crime commited out of stupidiy/desperation, the other is a calculated malicious act. And they are persecuted under separate laws (not sure about states/canada, but it is in russia, and we kinda copied us laws in 1991). Ofc laws have scales, would be stupid if they didnt, but putting a small scale crime, such as this one, and a major coordinated attack under 1 law leads to harsher punishment for smaller offences and softer sentences for larger one. Another good example (again, from Russian law) is possesion of illegal substances. Used to be the same crime ( YK 228) no matter the scale, which led ridiculous arrest rates of small time offenders. Something like 15 years ago they were separated into 2 different laws, one under the criminal code the other under administrative.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

Dunno, there is reason that there is theft and grand theft. One is a petty crime commited out of stupidiy/desperation, the other is a calculated malicious act. And they are persecuted under separate laws (not sure about states/canada, but it is in russia, and we kinda copied us laws in 1991). Ofc laws have scales, would be stupid if they didnt, but putting a small scale crime, such as this one, and a major coordinated attack under 1 law leads to harsher punishment for smaller offences and softer sentences for larger one. Another good example (again, from Russian law) is possesion of illegal substances. Used to be the same crime ( YK 228) no matter the scale, which led ridiculous arrest rates of small time offenders. Something like 15 years ago they were separated into 2 different laws, one under the criminal code the other under administrative.

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here though. I think you are assuming that all cyber crimes in Canada fall under one "crime"/charge, etc?

 

If so, that is incorrect. There are dozens of cyber crime charges in Canada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_in_Canada#Computer-related_offences

 

https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/legal/laws-canada-pertain-computer-crime-673

 

In this context, the man in question is being charged with Criminal Mischief (Criminal Code, section 430). There are numerous other Computer related crimes in the Canadian Criminal Code.

 

The exact punishment, etc, would be determined by the specific charge levied, along with the severity, and the circumstances, of said crime.

 

You might consider this a "small time" act. And on the grand scheme, yeah it's not as bad as, say, DDOSing Amazon's AWS network. But it's still wrong, and I have absolutely no issue with him being charged and if convicted, sentenced to a reasonable amount of jail time.

 

He's not gonna be getting 10 years in jail. He'll probably serve 1-2 years tops, if that. (Just a guess)

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

Ye, my bad, a previous post detailing the criteria of the crime misslead me. This way there is little to disagree with, although i still think hard time is kinda an overreaction in this case. Just fine the poor soab and give him some time to ponder on the act while doing community service. Jail ruins people and i highly doubt the boy deserves it

[dalekphalm]

19 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Ye, my bad, a previous post detailing the criteria of the crime misslead me. This way there is little to disagree with, although i still think hard time is kinda an overreaction in this case. Just fine the poor soab and give him some time to ponder on the act while doing community service. Jail ruins people and i highly doubt the boy deserves it

I mean, he knowingly and willingly sold chat bot spam services, created tools, etc.

 

I think he knew exactly what he was doing. And he should have known that was wrong. Maybe he'll take a plea deal and get no jailtime.

 

But we're not talking about a person spamming once for fun and not thinking about the consequences. This man repeatedly, and with intention and planning, spammed Twitch Chat.

 

Jail can ruin people. And I think that most countries (including Canada) can focus more heavily on re-integrating former prisoners back into society better. But with the criminal mischief charge, he won't go onto the Sex Offenders registry, etc, so while he might have some difficulty finding jobs, it won't be as bad as it could have been, had they went after him for the CP links.

[Spenser1337]

19 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You can't just say "lol it's just not free speech".

 

Give me a real argument as to why you think I'm wrong. Elaborate. Explain. Go into detail.

 

Free Speech isn't some magical thing that allows you to say absolutely anything you want. Even in precious America, there are limits to Free Speech (inciting direct harm, etc).

 

So, we've already came to the conclusion that basically all societies, even freedom loving America, are willing to draw a line somewhere. So, where the line gets drawn is ultimately the argument here.

 

We, in Canada, believe that asshole racist pieces of fucking shit, don't deserve the right to abuse free speech and say harmful things to others. If you're not a racist, bigoted, asshole piece of shit, then you won't have any issues with Free Speech in Canada, because you won't be violating the laws against Hate Speech. However, if someone decides to cross that line into actual Hate Speech? I have no sympathy for them. They are no longer using Free Speech. They are abusing it.

Free speech meaning I can say what I want without consequences, regardless of whether you believe it to be controversial 

[dalekphalm]

35 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Free speech meaning I can say what I want without consequences, regardless of whether you believe it to be controversial 

And how is that "Free Speech"? Why should that be protected? Why do you think you have the right to say anything without consequences?

 

Why do you think that's a good thing?

[Spenser1337]

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And how is that "Free Speech"? Why should that be protected? Why do you think you have the right to say anything without consequences?

 

Why do you think that's a good thing?

That is literally FREE SPEECH

 

that is my opinion, we clearly have different ideas on what free speech should be

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Spenser1337 said:

That is literally FREE SPEECH

 

that is my opinion, we clearly have different ideas on what free speech should be

Yeah but you just saying the words in upper case, does not explain why you think something is the way it is.

 

You haven't provided any explanation or elaboration.

 

And yes, I think it is clear that we have different ideas on free speech. I don't think it should be used to abuse people the way that racist assholes do. You don't agree.

 

Fair enough - I suppose we'll just leave it at that then.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

Free speech meaning I can say what I want without consequences, regardless of whether you believe it to be controversial 

Free speech only means that the government cannot do anything to silence what you say.

 

Nothing more.