So you read the affidavit and think that the hostnames recorded by the DHCP (or other IP-assigning method) server when assigning the IP to the computers used to commit acts being the same hostnames as the ones this guy uses on his laptops isn't probably cause to think his two laptops were involved in those acts?
Considering that changing a hostname is as easy as editing a hosts file, no, I don't. That's pretty common knowledge on a college campus (at least, it is on mine), it could have been spoofed by any of his peers; same with the name of the computer. An entire three commands run on any box could produce that result.
I'd rather he get away with being guilty and keep this kind of thing from happening to innocent people than innocent people have to go through this. Really, though, I'm more worried about item 4(f)(g); namely, that the fact that he uses an "uncommon operating system" is being considered by some as probable cause in its own right.
2. This was from a search warrant application. Not every cop is computer literate. This is worthy of a few snickers, not a front pager.
If their job includes deciding who to go after based on what happens on teh intarweb, then they should be, or have access to someone who is. It's worthy of being a front pager because he isn't and no one stopped him on that basis.
1. This case involved a "crime" committed using a computer. I know personally if I was put in charge of investigating a computer crime, I would seize every piece of magnetic and writable optical media I could find in the suspect's possession. Doing less would be incompetence.
I think doing less (read: obtaining only items specified in the search warrant) would be more along the lines of "reasonable search and seizure", and anything more would be a violation of basic constitutional rights.
How does it reward griefing?
If you're a great player and win against a crappy player, you'll gain very little and he'll lose very little, as that is the expected outcome.
You're missing the point.
It isn't about the magnitude of the gain. Its about there being a gain at all, and whether or not the same level of gain can be achieved through speed and efficiency killing new players rather than fighting one another.
If I can kill swaths of noobs at the starting city at 10 a minute and get 2.4 points for each one, what's the point of a 10-minute long PVP session that nets me 24 points?
Explain how this rewards griefing.
I think the idea itself has merit. If you see a possible exploit, you should maybe explain how it could be done so the flaw can be removed.
Its pretty simple.
Person ranked #2 decides he wants to be ranked #1. He's not really good at the game, but he does have a lot of time on his hands. So, he spends 20 hours a day fighting and killing people who just started playing. Even though he's only getting one or two points a kill, it doesn't matter; if he can kill new players at a rate 24x that of player ranked #1, then he can ascend to that spot. Does that help?
This would work in most current MMOs because playability is tied to the level; e.g, a high-level character is going to be better than a low-level character. You can't take a low-level character and put him with a bunch of high-level characters and expect him to be of any use. With the possible exception of games like EVE Online, where even a newly made character can at the very least jam you and run away, the new players would get walked all over for points.
It doesn't really need to be said how it rewards griefing; it already intrinsically does so. if it offers any kind of benefit at all for killing newer players, and especially if it offers the same or better benefits, taking into account the amount of time required to kill one, number killed per day, etc, its going to reward it.
The question is how to make it NOT do that; e.g, establish a point below which no reward is gained, and stick it about halfway down from your current level or whatever.
Please, as the GP posts, don't consider implementing this anywhere without addressing some of the more glaring issues.
That's your choice, then, isn't it?
Of course it is. I'm not complaining about it.
I was merely answering the question; the parent to my original post said 'Who doesn't go to Youtube'? Being one such person, I replied, with the said reason I don't use it.
I don't think that he understands that if you want something on demand in this way, you're going to pay for it; either you're going to pay for the hosting yourself and ensure that no data gets kept or anything like that, or you pay the cost in the users privacy, farming them out as eyes for advertisers and data for demographic mining.
I'd rather spend money and retain my privacy. My privacy is more valuable than I can put a dollar amount on.
1. It is a youtube link. Who doesn't go to youtube?
Me. A lot of other people I know who run Linux. It depends on Flash, and the GNU implementation of Flash is rather broken. I refuse to use the nonfree version, and it doesn't work with anything else, so...
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson