Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

86-year-old Canadian Woman Accused of Pirating Metro 2033, Told to Pay $5,000

blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,370
edited October 2016 in General Gaming

Post-nuclear war, mutant-killing video games are not Christine McMillan's thing.

But the 86-year-old from Ontario has been warned she could have to pay up to $5,000 for illegally downloading a game she'd never heard of.

She is one of likely tens of thousands of Canadians who have received notices to pay up, whether they are guilty or not.

"I found it quite shocking … I'm 86 years old, no one has access to my computer but me, why would I download a war game?" McMillan told Go Public.

In May, she received two emails forwarded by her internet provider.

"It seems to be a very foolish piece of legislation," McMillan said.

"That somebody can threaten you over the internet … that to me is intimidation and I can't believe the government would support such action."

Network security analyst and technology expert Wil Knoll calls it a "dragnet cash grab."

"It's preying on people that don't necessarily understand the system or the technology that surrounds it," he said, "and they're willing to pay out of court because they're scared."

Knoll says because McMillan lives in an apartment, someone could have accessed her unsecured wireless connection, then downloaded the game using her IP address.

In an email to CBC News, the department says, "Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean that you have in fact infringed copyright or that you will be sued for copyright infringement.

The Notice and Notice regime does not impose any obligations on a subscriber who receives a notice, and it does not require the subscriber to contact the copyright owner or the intermediary. There is no legal obligation to pay any settlement offered by a copyright owner."

It says since the new system kicked in, department officials have been working with copyright owners and internet service providers to make sure it's working and to educate Canadians on how it works.

The next review of Canada's Copyright Act is scheduled for 2017.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/notice-and-notice-system-internet-copyright-enforcement-settlement-1.3823986






거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












«1

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Even if she did download the game $5000 is insane, $250 would have been acceptable but people have got far less for worse crimes.

    We had a similar thing in Sweden (but for $120), the general consent was that it was blackmail though so they draw it back (http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article23825029.ab, yeah the link is in Swedish and it is from todays newspaper).

    Just sending out fees without any court order is not a good idea, if we let crap like that pass they will soon throw people in jail without trial as well.

    Yeah, Piracy is bad but downloading a single game is not $5000 bad and sending it to people without any proof should be the real criminal offense, the ones sending out stuff like this should be the ones paying 5K for each sent warning.

    I'll bet that if someone actually shoplifted the game they would not get as an insane fee and that tells us something is rotten here.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,305
    Almost sounds like another Internet scam targeting old people.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • bartoni33bartoni33 Member RarePosts: 2,044
    Welcome to our (USA) world Canada! Enjoy your ridiculous DMCA-esqe nightmare. I hope you guys have better sense then we do and get that shit removed next year.

    A few years ago I got a DMCA-forced letter from my ISP stating because I Torrented The Ricky Gervaise Show (Karl you're an idiot!) I could be fined up to 100K and jailed for up to 10 years. The next year I got another one for Torrenting Fallout: New Vegas (heard mixed reviews so wanted to demo it) and they only threatened me with permanently cancelling my account, no mention of the retarded fine and jail time.

    This idea that you can fine and/or jail someone for copying a digital medium without loss of the original and somehow call it "theft" is mindboggling. The day you can prove that HBO lost money because I Torrented a show is the day I will willingly be called a criminal and allow myself to be punished as one. Prove that I was going to sub to HBO but said "na I'll just copy a show from them instead". The idea that you can punish someone for "theft" without proof of any loss of property is insane.

    Sorry for the rant but this shit just sets me off. The USA has created a nation of criminals from all the chickenshit laws made just so lawyers can get rich.

    Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.


  • AoriAori Member EpicPosts: 4,180
    I used to get cease and desist warnings/notices from companies like Media Factory(Japanese Company) in the late 90s and early 2000s. Some letters threatened up to 10,000 dollars for each episode illegally obtained and uploaded.

    They always told me to contact them or my ISP to validate the claims and "work it out". I tossed it in the trash. 
  • PyndaPynda Member UncommonPosts: 855
    edited November 2016
    "..her unsecured wireless connection"

    That's bad news right there, and tends to make me believe this charge might be legitimate. But nevertheless, a claim for $5,000 is of course absolute rubbish. However I wouldn't doubt for a minute it might be legal. The power giant media companies are exerting through corrupt politicians to enact these draconian laws is very real.

    What would be a fair settlement amount IMO? I'd say the cost of the stolen product + 3X that amount in punitive damages. I believe this formula reflects more or less the pre-DMCA era norm.
  • Soki123Soki123 Member RarePosts: 2,558
    Lol I can stream Kodi in Canada and it s perfectly legal for now.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,374
    bartoni33 said:
    Welcome to our (USA) world Canada! Enjoy your ridiculous DMCA-esqe nightmare. I hope you guys have better sense then we do and get that shit removed next year.

    A few years ago I got a DMCA-forced letter from my ISP stating because I Torrented The Ricky Gervaise Show (Karl you're an idiot!) I could be fined up to 100K and jailed for up to 10 years. The next year I got another one for Torrenting Fallout: New Vegas (heard mixed reviews so wanted to demo it) and they only threatened me with permanently cancelling my account, no mention of the retarded fine and jail time.

    This idea that you can fine and/or jail someone for copying a digital medium without loss of the original and somehow call it "theft" is mindboggling. The day you can prove that HBO lost money because I Torrented a show is the day I will willingly be called a criminal and allow myself to be punished as one. Prove that I was going to sub to HBO but said "na I'll just copy a show from them instead". The idea that you can punish someone for "theft" without proof of any loss of property is insane.

    Sorry for the rant but this shit just sets me off. The USA has created a nation of criminals from all the chickenshit laws made just so lawyers can get rich.

    No matter what "you" think of it, you are still committing an unauthorized use of someone else's property which violates not only the law but the owners rights as well 

    Its wrong and there is no justification for it.

    Now clearly this woman in the OP isn't in this category and needs to be remedied.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,845
    The genie has been out of the bottle for a long time now.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • Dagon13Dagon13 Member UncommonPosts: 566
    Kyleran said:
    bartoni33 said:
    Welcome to our (USA) world Canada! Enjoy your ridiculous DMCA-esqe nightmare. I hope you guys have better sense then we do and get that shit removed next year.

    A few years ago I got a DMCA-forced letter from my ISP stating because I Torrented The Ricky Gervaise Show (Karl you're an idiot!) I could be fined up to 100K and jailed for up to 10 years. The next year I got another one for Torrenting Fallout: New Vegas (heard mixed reviews so wanted to demo it) and they only threatened me with permanently cancelling my account, no mention of the retarded fine and jail time.

    This idea that you can fine and/or jail someone for copying a digital medium without loss of the original and somehow call it "theft" is mindboggling. The day you can prove that HBO lost money because I Torrented a show is the day I will willingly be called a criminal and allow myself to be punished as one. Prove that I was going to sub to HBO but said "na I'll just copy a show from them instead". The idea that you can punish someone for "theft" without proof of any loss of property is insane.

    Sorry for the rant but this shit just sets me off. The USA has created a nation of criminals from all the chickenshit laws made just so lawyers can get rich.

    No matter what "you" think of it, you are still committing an unauthorized use of someone else's property which violates not only the law but the owners rights as well 

    Its wrong and there is no justification for it.

    Now clearly this woman in the OP isn't in this category and needs to be remedied.

    Isn't that profiling?

    I have to agree with both of you.  No matter what you say, if you are pirating you ARE taking content without compensation.  They may not be able to prove loss of property but you KNOW you are taking from them.  You can justify your actions but it changes nothing.

    However, these attempts to collect on damages are absurd and present, what I feel, is a greater perversion of morals than what is, at worst, petty theft.  I also suspect that these so called damages reflect an assumption of copy, distribution, and profit.  They think you're recording games to VHS and selling them on the street...


  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,241
    edited November 2016
    All this is a load of BS to scare people into paying money they don't have to.  Whether you get a email, phone call or other type of BS letters just shove it in the trash or tell them to bring you to court.

    It's a scam even legit debt collection agencies do this and guess what most of it is BS to scare you and even for legit claims you can tell them to stop contacting you by phone and they just need to bring you to court if they feel you really owe money.

    Dunno how it is in USA but here in Canada the only way to get money from you is for them to actually "bring you to court" and then they need to win a court ruling against you which is far harder to do even if you really do owe a debt.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • VolgoreVolgore Member EpicPosts: 3,872
    We've had many similar cases in my country when at that time there wasn't really a proper law/regulation in place and basicly every attourney could send you warnings, cease and desists orders etc. and fill in their own made up fines for downloading, copyright infringements and so on.

    There were constantly reports of old people that were obliged or wrongfully fined to pay thousands of euros for downloading stuff like the latest Metallica album and such. Most of them had no idea what the internet was.





    image
  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,104
    edited November 2016
    I am pretty sure here in Canada they are not allowed to claim more than the cost of the item unless you were using a torrent . . then they could sue for damages for the distributed copies but there is a max (likely what they asked for EDIT:  just checked and yep. . it is $5000).  Every expert here would argue that it would cost them more to pursue the charges especially if you ask for your legal costs to be covered if they lose.

    I am 100% sure that her access was used to download the software though.  Anyone could argue that they had unsecured access and it would be hard to prove otherwise.

    Also, I will totally be downloading war games when I am 86.

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,104
    edited November 2016
    Some good info if you live in Canada:

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/04/the-copyright-notice-flood-what-to-consider-if-you-receive-a-copyright-infringement-notification/

    Has anyone successfully sued a downloader for non-commercial infringement in Canada?

    Not to my knowledge. The members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association ultimately abandoned the first file sharing lawsuits launched in 2004. More recently, Voltage Pictures has sought a court order for the identity of roughly 2,000 TekSavvy subscribers. After more than two years of litigation, it has obtained an order for the subscribers’ identity but that information has not been released due to an ongoing dispute over the costs its must pay before the information is made available.


    What steps are needed for a rights holder to sue in Canada?

    As discussed in my other posts, the notices forwarded by Internet providers are an unproven allegation of infringement. For a rights holder to successfully pursue a case against an alleged individual infringer, it would first need to obtain a court order requiring the Internet provider to disclose the identity of the subscriber. Canadian courts have established privacy safeguards around potential disclosure of such information. The ISP may oppose the disclosure of the subscribers identity or argue for subscriber notification of the legal process.

    If the rights holder succeeds in obtaining the subscriber’s personal information, it might then send another demand letter seeking payment in return for settling the case. Canadian courts have recently required that such letters be reviewed by the court before being sent to subscribers.

    If the subscriber refuses to settle, the rights holder could pursue an infringement action in court. The rights holder would be required to prove its rights in the work, that an infringement occurred, and that the subscriber was responsible for the infringement. The rights holder would likely also need to provide some evidence of damages, given the cap on non-commercial infringement under the law discussed below. The subscriber could challenge these claims in court, potentially providing evidence that they were not involved in the unauthorized download (perhaps due to an error by the rights holder, incorrect IP address information, or an insecure wireless network) or by attempting to make the case that their actions did not violate Canadian copyright law.

    What are the damages if a rights holder is successful in their lawsuit?

    The legal process described above is expensive, yet the potential payoff from litigation against individuals is limited. The government established a new cap on liability for non-commercial infringement in its 2012 copyright reform package. The law now sets a maximum liability of C$5000 for all non-commercial infringements. The provision states:

    Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

    (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes

    The government’s intent was clearly to ensure that the maximum applied to all infringement from all rights holders. Indeed, the government’s fact sheet on the bill stated:

    The Bill ensures that Canadians are not subject to unreasonable penalties by significantly reducing statutory damages for infringement for non-commercial purposes by individuals, providing the courts with the flexibility to award between $100 and $5,000 in total damages. Using the same example of five illegally downloaded songs, the individual would only be liable for a penalty of between $100 and $5,000 under the proposed changes. The Bill will ensure that courts take proportionality into account in awarding damages.

    Some rights holders have recently argued that they could choose to pursue actual damages, rather than the non-commercial statutory damages. Yet the primary reason governments implemented statutory damages is that proving actual damages can be very difficult. As Howard Knopf rightly notes, to suggest that rights holder might be able to prove significant actual damages in mass copyright litigation is “extremely far fetched.”


    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    I think she's guilty.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,434
    I think Christine is just embarrassed because she's been outed as post-apocalyptic mutant killer.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,241
    Aethaeryn said:
    Some good info if you live in Canada:

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/04/the-copyright-notice-flood-what-to-consider-if-you-receive-a-copyright-infringement-notification/

    Has anyone successfully sued a downloader for non-commercial infringement in Canada?

    Not to my knowledge. The members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association ultimately abandoned the first file sharing lawsuits launched in 2004. More recently, Voltage Pictures has sought a court order for the identity of roughly 2,000 TekSavvy subscribers. After more than two years of litigation, it has obtained an order for the subscribers’ identity but that information has not been released due to an ongoing dispute over the costs its must pay before the information is made available.


    What steps are needed for a rights holder to sue in Canada?

    As discussed in my other posts, the notices forwarded by Internet providers are an unproven allegation of infringement. For a rights holder to successfully pursue a case against an alleged individual infringer, it would first need to obtain a court order requiring the Internet provider to disclose the identity of the subscriber. Canadian courts have established privacy safeguards around potential disclosure of such information. The ISP may oppose the disclosure of the subscribers identity or argue for subscriber notification of the legal process.

    If the rights holder succeeds in obtaining the subscriber’s personal information, it might then send another demand letter seeking payment in return for settling the case. Canadian courts have recently required that such letters be reviewed by the court before being sent to subscribers.

    If the subscriber refuses to settle, the rights holder could pursue an infringement action in court. The rights holder would be required to prove its rights in the work, that an infringement occurred, and that the subscriber was responsible for the infringement. The rights holder would likely also need to provide some evidence of damages, given the cap on non-commercial infringement under the law discussed below. The subscriber could challenge these claims in court, potentially providing evidence that they were not involved in the unauthorized download (perhaps due to an error by the rights holder, incorrect IP address information, or an insecure wireless network) or by attempting to make the case that their actions did not violate Canadian copyright law.

    What are the damages if a rights holder is successful in their lawsuit?

    The legal process described above is expensive, yet the potential payoff from litigation against individuals is limited. The government established a new cap on liability for non-commercial infringement in its 2012 copyright reform package. The law now sets a maximum liability of C$5000 for all non-commercial infringements. The provision states:

    Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

    (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes

    The government’s intent was clearly to ensure that the maximum applied to all infringement from all rights holders. Indeed, the government’s fact sheet on the bill stated:

    The Bill ensures that Canadians are not subject to unreasonable penalties by significantly reducing statutory damages for infringement for non-commercial purposes by individuals, providing the courts with the flexibility to award between $100 and $5,000 in total damages. Using the same example of five illegally downloaded songs, the individual would only be liable for a penalty of between $100 and $5,000 under the proposed changes. The Bill will ensure that courts take proportionality into account in awarding damages.

    Some rights holders have recently argued that they could choose to pursue actual damages, rather than the non-commercial statutory damages. Yet the primary reason governments implemented statutory damages is that proving actual damages can be very difficult. As Howard Knopf rightly notes, to suggest that rights holder might be able to prove significant actual damages in mass copyright litigation is “extremely far fetched.”


    Like I have said it's a common scare tactic to use scary wording like, " you may be sued for XXXX and could be brought to court..." etc etc.  It's like fishing and them trolling to see if they can catch some gullible fish.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,305
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
    She's an 86 year old women, what the heck does she know about Internet security or setting up wifi. I highly doubt she set her wifi up, her service provider most likely did or a contractor they hired. My mother is almost 80, she doesn't want anything to do with the Internet. It scares her because of this type of shit. If she ever did get it, she'd be clueless.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,241
    edited November 2016
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
    That's like saying you're somehow responsible if some thugs steal your mini van and use it to transport sex slaves or go on a deathrace 2000 murder spree...

    Also here in canada lots of companies have your wireless on by default and guess what wpa wpa2 can be hacked, lets not even mention wep. 

    Best method to avoid wireless problems is to disable it period alas most companies leave it on by default.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    Asm0deus said:
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
    That's like saying you're somehow responsible if some thugs steal your mini van and use it to transport sex slaves or go on a deathrace 2000 murder spree...

    Also here in canada lots of companies have your wireless on by default and guess what wpa wpa2 can be hacked, lets not even mention wep. 

    Best method to avoid wireless problems is to disable it period alas most companies leave it on by default.
    No, it's not like saying.....
    Because if that were the case, we'd be talking about how thugs broke into her apt and forced themselves on her PC. But that's not how this happened. There's a measure of common sense here that says if you don't know what you are doing.........don't do it. In the 21st century, I find it somewhat difficult to accept someone knows enough to know what the Internet is and how to get on it, without understanding that some measure of precaution is required. You don't hand a neon sign outside your front door saying the doors is unlocked and the car keys are hanging on the hook just inside to the right. Yet that's exactly what this person did with her Internet.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,241
    edited November 2016
    Asm0deus said:
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
    That's like saying you're somehow responsible if some thugs steal your mini van and use it to transport sex slaves or go on a deathrace 2000 murder spree...

    Also here in canada lots of companies have your wireless on by default and guess what wpa wpa2 can be hacked, lets not even mention wep. 

    Best method to avoid wireless problems is to disable it period alas most companies leave it on by default.
    No, it's not like saying.....
    Because if that were the case, we'd be talking about how thugs broke into her apt and forced themselves on her PC. But that's not how this happened. There's a measure of common sense here that says if you don't know what you are doing.........don't do it. In the 21st century, I find it somewhat difficult to accept someone knows enough to know what the Internet is and how to get on it, without understanding that some measure of precaution is required. You don't hand a neon sign outside your front door saying the doors is unlocked and the car keys are hanging on the hook just inside to the right. Yet that's exactly what this person did with her Internet.
    Ridiculous!  If you don't know how to make your car 100% anti theft proof and rely on locked doors only then you shouldn't have a car...... 

    ....I will let you in on a secret Geezer...... thugs don't need to break into your apartment to get your keys to your locked car to break in and start it and steal it! 


    Wait for it...they can steal your car regardless!!!!!!!  Guess  you wont be sleeping well tonight!


    The measure of precaution in this case is having your cable/phone company install your router when you get internet from them and guess what most people think that's safe enough just like how if you buy a car and keep your keys to yourself and lock your doors it's "safe" enough.

    The reality is far far different.

    Also you don't know jack about what this person did or did not do past what was written in the article.



    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    Asm0deus said:
    Asm0deus said:
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
    That's like saying you're somehow responsible if some thugs steal your mini van and use it to transport sex slaves or go on a deathrace 2000 murder spree...

    Also here in canada lots of companies have your wireless on by default and guess what wpa wpa2 can be hacked, lets not even mention wep. 

    Best method to avoid wireless problems is to disable it period alas most companies leave it on by default.
    No, it's not like saying.....
    Because if that were the case, we'd be talking about how thugs broke into her apt and forced themselves on her PC. But that's not how this happened. There's a measure of common sense here that says if you don't know what you are doing.........don't do it. In the 21st century, I find it somewhat difficult to accept someone knows enough to know what the Internet is and how to get on it, without understanding that some measure of precaution is required. You don't hand a neon sign outside your front door saying the doors is unlocked and the car keys are hanging on the hook just inside to the right. Yet that's exactly what this person did with her Internet.
    Ridiculous!  If you don't know how to make your car 100% anti theft proof and rely on locked doors only then you shouldn't have a car...... 

    ....I will let you in on a secret Geezer...... thugs don't need to break into your apartment to get your keys to your locked car to break in and start it and steal it! 


    Wait for it...they can steal your car regardless!!!!!!!  Guess  you wont be sleeping well tonight!


    The measure of precaution in this case is having your cable/phone company install your router when you get internet from them and guess what most people think that's safe enough just like how if you buy a car and keep your keys to yourself and lock your doors it's "safe" enough.

    The reality is far far different.

    Also you don't know jack about what this person did or did not do past what was written in the article.



    Let's lose the hyperbole and scale this back to using common sense and then try to say it's ridiculous. What's ridiculous is not taking any precautions whatsoever and expecting nothing bad to happen because, well, nothing's 100%. See, you don't need to be 100% secure. You just need to not be the least secure guy on the block. They go for the easiest and quickest. Just don't be that guy. If the woman had some kind (any kind) of security on her WiFi, then fine no argument. But I doubt that. You don't need multiple layers of encryption and a DMZ at home. You just need to make the guys driving by looking for free Internet, keep driving.
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,697
    She was lucky the neighbor didn't download S&M porn otherwise we would've been facing a very different headline now: kinky grandma fined $5000!
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,241
    edited November 2016
    Asm0deus said:
    Asm0deus said:
    If someone pirated her internet, she is in some way responsible for the download. 5k in damages is outrageous, however, people have to take reasonable care not to expose themselves. Leaving your wireless internet open and unguarded is asking for problems worse than video game piracy. This time it's a game, when happens when the next person is moving child porn through your internet account? What then? You claim "I didn't know"?
    That's like saying you're somehow responsible if some thugs steal your mini van and use it to transport sex slaves or go on a deathrace 2000 murder spree...

    Also here in canada lots of companies have your wireless on by default and guess what wpa wpa2 can be hacked, lets not even mention wep. 

    Best method to avoid wireless problems is to disable it period alas most companies leave it on by default.
    No, it's not like saying.....
    Because if that were the case, we'd be talking about how thugs broke into her apt and forced themselves on her PC. But that's not how this happened. There's a measure of common sense here that says if you don't know what you are doing.........don't do it. In the 21st century, I find it somewhat difficult to accept someone knows enough to know what the Internet is and how to get on it, without understanding that some measure of precaution is required. You don't hand a neon sign outside your front door saying the doors is unlocked and the car keys are hanging on the hook just inside to the right. Yet that's exactly what this person did with her Internet.
    Ridiculous!  If you don't know how to make your car 100% anti theft proof and rely on locked doors only then you shouldn't have a car...... 

    ....I will let you in on a secret Geezer...... thugs don't need to break into your apartment to get your keys to your locked car to break in and start it and steal it! 


    Wait for it...they can steal your car regardless!!!!!!!  Guess  you wont be sleeping well tonight!


    The measure of precaution in this case is having your cable/phone company install your router when you get internet from them and guess what most people think that's safe enough just like how if you buy a car and keep your keys to yourself and lock your doors it's "safe" enough.

    The reality is far far different.

    Also you don't know jack about what this person did or did not do past what was written in the article.



    Let's lose the hyperbole and scale this back to using common sense and then try to say it's ridiculous. What's ridiculous is not taking any precautions whatsoever and expecting nothing bad to happen because, well, nothing's 100%. See, you don't need to be 100% secure. You just need to not be the least secure guy on the block. They go for the easiest and quickest. Just don't be that guy. If the woman had some kind (any kind) of security on her WiFi, then fine no argument. But I doubt that. You don't need multiple layers of encryption and a DMZ at home. You just need to make the guys driving by looking for free Internet, keep driving.
    That's the stupid in your argument. I know for a fact cogeco installs routers with wireless enabled and has wpa2 etc.

    What your saying is if your car gets jacked then obviously it's your fault for being the easy target.  Hey lets be crass and say some drunk chick walking home is at fault for being raped cause when it comes right down to it your trying to blame the victim. 

    Hey victims should know better than put themselves in positions that make them easy targets...right!

    Don't be that guy....lol

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,254
    I think there should be litigation lawsuit repercussions to prevent abuse. Things like fining attorneys for black mail if they try to make a deal out of court by trumping up potential fines. Reasonable damages. Ability for a counter suit in cases of harassment and attempts at using the legal process to detriment someone. Naturally this would be a second case where you would need to prove the suing party is guilty of that.
    There seems to be this idea that the counter suit is retribution, but in some cases it's really needed. One thing that happens in the US is people suing those of opposing political views and the recipient not being able to stop the harassment. The 26 frivolous suits against Sarah Palin is what ultimately forced her to step down as Governor. The attorney filing them never was reprimanded and was rewarded for her efforts. It also happens for major donors to opposing political parties. If their name is leaked, some party hawks swoop in and start harassing them.
Sign In or Register to comment.