Hybrid ? - Page 2

Amagius · #41 08-13-2003, 02:39 AM

Oh, but I did respond easily. It doesn't matter that with all the smartness you can muster, U.S. Law is flawed, and with such it's safe.

So, petty insult remake.

Think -> |Tseng| ->Crap

Neonight · #42 08-13-2003, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng

We are not debating the illegality of m1nt's website. We are debating the disclaimer and its relation to lawsuits.

Amagius would have me believe that any idiot could put up a disclaimer against anyone to prevent legal action, which is not the case.

You seem to have trouble seeing points, Neonight.

Quote:

Do I care how nice m1nt is? He runs a site dedicated to the destruction of an online game by illegal means - sites like that are illegal, by the way.

Since when are sites that have trainers illegal?

Tseng · #43 08-13-2003, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amagius
Oh, but I did respond easily. It doesn't matter that with all the smartness you can muster, U.S. Law is flawed, and with such it's safe.

So, petty insult remake.

Think -> |Tseng| ->Crap

You honestly believe that US Law allows anyone to put a disclaimer on their webpage to exempt them from any form of prosecution or lawsuit?

Quote:

Originally posted by Neonight

Since when are sites that have trainers illegal?

Do you lack the literacy skills to read the first thing you quoted?

Amagius · #44 08-13-2003, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng

You honestly believe that US Law allows anyone to put a disclaimer on their webpage to exempt them from any form of prosecution or lawsuit?

"Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act."

EDIT: Wrongly read. Just as Intelligence, and The Thief who broke a leg, there is going to be another loophole.

Neonight · #45 08-13-2003, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng

You honestly believe that US Law allows anyone to put a disclaimer on their webpage to exempt them from any form of prosecution or lawsuit?

Actually, I do believe it allows them to prosecute the offender...

Tseng · #46 08-13-2003, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amagius

"Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act."

EDIT: Wrongly read. Just as Intelligence, and The Thief who broke a leg, there is going to be another loophole.

My thanks go to to http://snopes.com for this bit of information. Amagius - please do research before citing something, please.

Quote:

Claim: Citing "code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act" protects web site operators from prosecution.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

If you are affiliated with any government, anti-piracy group or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one you CANNOT enter this web site, cannot access any of its files and you cannot view any of the HTML files. If you enter this site you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you CANNOT threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this page which includes family, friends or individuals who run or enter this web site.

Origins: The
passage quoted above, or variants thereof, can be found on thousands of web sites (particularly those that traffic in pirated software, music, and films), placed there in the misguided belief that it actually provides web site operators protection against being prosecuted for engaging in illegal, Internet-related activities. As a legal strategem, it's just as flawed as the widely-believed notion that prostitutes and drug dealers can foil the efforts of undercover cops simply by asking them flat out "Are you a cop?" under the mistaken assumption that law enforcement officers cannot lie about their status (and if they do, the bust will be thrown out of court as a case of "entrapment").

As to the specifics of this dubious disclaimer, President Clinton signed no "Internet Privacy Act" in 1995, and existing federal privacy protections applicable to the world of cyberspace generally govern the collection and dissemination of personal information (such as medical records) via the Internet. Federal privacy laws don't serve to provide those who break laws in the on-line world with protection from prosecution should their illegal cyber-activities be uncovered by law enforcement officials visiting their web sites.

When it comes to acts that a significant portion of the public doesn't feel should be criminal (such as prostitution or distributing copyright-protected material via the Internet), many of those who engage in such acts cling to the belief that the use of some simple legal talisman -- knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer -- will immunize them from prosecutorial harm, but the law just doesn't work that way. Although we do have some well-established legal protections against the search and seizure of property and the disclosure of certain types of information (e.g., communications between priest and penitents, doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, husbands and wives) in legal proceedings, there are no special laws to prevent law enforcement officials from gathering information about illegal activities through the course of normal investigative efforts just because those efforts take place on-line, nor are the results of those efforts nullified if investigators conceal or fail to reveal their status as law enforcement officials.

The surest way of avoiding punishment for breaking the law remains . . . don't break the law.

GryffonDurime · #47 08-13-2003, 02:59 AM

Welcome to America, where theives can sue their victims and someone represented by a giant rolling panda can debate with other people on the question: "Does a disclaimer automaticly ensure protection from lawsuits?". So...say a store puts up a sign that says they're not responsible for any losses of personal possesions in the sotre or any harm that comes to them while inside, and the store then hired throngs of burly thugs to beat customers up and take their money. By your logic, those shoppers couldn't sue. -_-. Not exactly the same as a disclaimer on the net, but you get my point.

MrCharles · #48 08-13-2003, 03:01 AM

Hybrid rocks.

GryffonDurime · #49 08-13-2003, 03:03 AM

Yes, this thread is now totally off topic

Amagius · #50 08-13-2003, 03:03 AM

Tseng, you've caught me. Full truth. No Internet Privacy Act. BUT, disclaimers still can hold that WITHOUT the full warrenty of The internet Privacy Act of 1995. Not to mention, that there are NO trainers on Intelligence.

Tseng - please do research before citing something, please.

Tseng · #51 08-13-2003, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amagius
Tseng, you've caught me. Full truth. No Internet Privacy Act. BUT, disclaimers still can hold that WITHOUT the full warrenty of The internet Privacy Act of 1995. Not to mention, that there are NO trainers on Intelligence.

Without some kind of legal backing, a few words on a website mean nothing; disclaimers are ordinarily used to limit the person's liability who uses it; however, you cannot remove someone's liability simply becuase someone else visits their webpage - that is fallacious.

GryffonDurime · #52 08-13-2003, 03:07 AM

Oh dear, Amagius, did you have to start it all over again?

Amagius · #53 08-13-2003, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng

Without some kind of legal backing, a few words on a website mean nothing; disclaimers are ordinarily used to limit the person's liability who uses it; however, you cannot remove someone's liability simply becuase someone else visits their webpage - that is fallacious.

Yes, that is fallacious. A Disclaimer here is used more as a Terms of Agreement. and it does it purpose, but the main point besides legal mubo, was if Intelligence led to the desturction of Graal. It does NOT.

GryffonDurime · #54 08-13-2003, 03:14 AM

Okay, now that we've established that Tseng and Amagius probably woln't be stopping until they poke some eyes out, mabey we should at least have everyone else stay on topic? Now what was the topic again...oh yeha, Hybrid. Let's all join Hybrid because Farin thinks we're cool.

Amagius · #55 08-13-2003, 03:15 AM

Already in Hbrid.

*continues to the poking of eyeballs*

GryffonDurime · #56 08-13-2003, 03:16 AM

Honestly Amagius. Chill with it.

Neonight · #57 08-13-2003, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng
Do you lack the literacy skills to read the first thing you quoted?

Do you lack the literacy skills to read the second thing I quoted?

GryffonDurime · #58 08-13-2003, 03:21 AM

Neo, that's not the subject of this thread

Neonight · #59 08-13-2003, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GryffonDurime
Neo, that's not the subject of this thread

Fine. If my posts get deleted, whatever.

ON TOPIC:

HYBRID ROX LOL110511FARIN>ALL!^%!

MrCharles · #60 08-13-2003, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neonight

Fine. If my posts get deleted, whatever.

ON TOPIC:

HYBRID ROX LOL110511FARIN>ALL!^%!

ROXOR

GryffonDurime · #61 08-13-2003, 03:25 AM

Yay. We're back on topic. Hybrid is a super saturated guild of bloodlusty PKers.

Tseng · #62 08-13-2003, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amagius

Yes, that is fallacious. A Disclaimer here is used more as a Terms of Agreement. and it does it purpose, but the main point besides legal mubo, was if Intelligence led to the desturction of Graal. It does NOT.

They are a hacking site. I'm sure it's not terribly hard to find something illegal there

.

Oh, and if you attempt to tell me it's not a hacking site:

Examine their forums title? "Intelligence Hacking"

Examine their individual forum names/descriptions?
-"General: For pretty much anything related to hacking."
-"Hacks: Post programs, utilities, whatever."

Quote:

Originally posted by Neonight

Do you lack the literacy skills to read the second thing I quoted?

When the answer to it lied within the first thing you quoted, it became unnecessary to repeat myself.

Neonight · #63 08-13-2003, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng
When the answer to it lied within the first thing you quoted, it became unnecessary to repeat myself.

I made it the topic at hand. I expected a reply.

GryffonDurime · #64 08-13-2003, 03:30 AM

D'arvit Tseng. By any chance is this site also the webpage of Hybrid?

Amagius · #65 08-13-2003, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tseng

They are a hacking site. I'm sure it's not terribly hard to find something illegal there .

Oh, and if you attempt to tell me it's not a hacking site:

Examine their forums title? "Intelligence Hacking"

Examine their individual forum names/descriptions?
-"General: For pretty much anything related to hacking."
-"Hacks: Post programs, utilities, whatever."

When the answer to it lied within the first thing you quoted, it became unnecessary to repeat myself.

It is under their terms that it is educational purpose and whatever one does with it isn't their fault. Find something llegal. I swear it's fsuking hard. Hacking isn't always illegal - OH **** LIGHTNING I MAY NOT MAKE IT

Tseng · #66 08-13-2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amagius

It is under their terms that it is educational purpose and whatever one does with it isn't their fault. Find something llegal. I swear it's fsuking hard. Hacking isn't always illegal - OH **** LIGHTNING I MAY NOT MAKE IT

Malicious cracking != educational hacking.

Theirs is the former - the claim that it is the latter is just like citing a non-existant act of Congress, a pathetic attempt to cover themselves. And, I must reluctantly admit that it works rather well if people do not clearly understand where the line exists or what is a real act or not.

Zurkiba · #67 08-13-2003, 03:32 AM

Hybrid used to PK me

GryffonDurime · #68 08-13-2003, 03:34 AM

-_-. Let this dead horse lay.

Zurkiba · #69 08-13-2003, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GryffonDurime
-_-. Let this dead horse lay.

*pokes the dead horse with a stick*

GryffonDurime · #70 08-13-2003, 03:45 AM

*Pokes Zurkiba with his Mace of Warhare Slaying*

Budda · #71 08-13-2003, 04:44 AM

This topic has gotten very interesting. I say the score still stands. Tseng-1, Amagius-0

deman1171 · #72 08-13-2003, 05:00 AM

I agree.
Amagius seems alot different now.

GryffonDurime · #73 08-13-2003, 05:14 AM

Bah, Nappa don't encourage them to go at it.

Budda · #74 08-13-2003, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GryffonDurime
Bah, Nappa don't encourage them to go at it.

Tseng would win,anyway. Im suprised most people havent learned not to argue with him, he wins 95% of the time.

Valder · #75 08-13-2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Budda

Tseng would win,anyway. Im suprised most people havent learned not to argue with him, he wins 95% of the time.

Not so

Budda · #76 08-13-2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valder

Not so

I havent seen him lose an arguement in quite some time.

Dude6252000 · #77 08-13-2003, 05:45 AM

Amagius started acting different to me ever since he started playing Survival Project and met my brother. o_O

GryffonDurime · #78 08-13-2003, 05:45 AM

You don't know? Tseng sold his soul to Ghost Pirate in exchange for the power to win any argument.

EDIT: Also he got a bag of tortilla chips in the deal

Dude6252000 · #79 08-13-2003, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GryffonDurime
You don't know? Tseng sold his soul to Ghost Pirate in exchange for the power to win any argument.

EDIT: Also he got a bag of tortilla chips in the deal

I would have done it just for the tortilla chips.

Budda · #80 08-13-2003, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GryffonDurime
Also he got a bag of tortilla chips in the deal

I took them from him while he wasnt looking.