Because the article title is misleading. He did more than "guess the rival team's password". He also accessed the guy's email account to steal the new password after it was reset. And he wasn't doing it out of curiosity and didn't choose his target at random. He did this specifically, in a sport where inside information like that could be worth as much as a few million dollars.
So he accessed more than one account with his skeleton password. And quite possibly he did make a few quid out of any knowledge gained. Still seems harsh...who was actually harmed? Universal-Password-Bob (or whoever was hacked) suffers some deserved embarrassment but learns a valuable lesson in compensation...to whit: "Do not use the same fucking password everywhere, you muppet". You could almost get one of those inspirational films out of it.
So if you use the same password everywhere you deserve what you get? So if I find an unlocked window on the second story of your house and help myself to your wife's jewelry, is the "deserved embarrassment and valuable lesson" on your part enough that you don't think I should go to jail?
I didn't say that at all. I said it seems a bit harsh, because it does. In your analogy, it would be more akin to me going out for the weekend and leaving the front door unlocked....or better yet a spare key under the rude gnome that everybody knew about...pretty sure you wouldn't pull 46 months in pokey for either one, unless you went on to burglarising the judge's house straight afterwards. And if I did leave the door unlocked or if it could be established that everybody knew about my spare key; that would be a consideration in the sentence.
The other thing I asked is what harm was done? In your analogy there would be clear harm in the form of missing and irreplaceable jewellery. In this case the guy snooped on the Astros -whoever the fuck they might be- files, but it has not been explained what harm was done and to whom.
Re: Adam 1 Re: clearly this much more evil than
"...dodgy loans in CDS and on-selling them to pension funds as AAA."
1. The "dodgy loans" were largely from gubbermint-approved bodies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (or maybe that should be "Dummicrats-approved" seeing as Prez Bush warned the Dummicrats-controlled houses of the dangers of the sub-prime mortgages).
2. It was completely legal at the time, despite what you may have read on Indymedia, whereas hacking email and making unauthorised access using someone else's password are both crimes.
Re: Adam 1 clearly this much more evil than
My memory of the SubPrime Fiasco is slightly different:
The dodgy loans from many, many sources (including Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac but not by any means limited to them) were bundled by banks into instruments that were then fraudulently represented as solid investment vehicles by colluding with the SEC in a blatantly illegal fixing of the system.
Then said banks colluded to work an insurance scam under the blanket term Credit Default Swap. Not illegal mostly, on account of the deregulation begun under Reagan and continued by every President since having created holes you could drive a bus through.
No, those in charge of the banks did nothing illegal (at least, nothing that can be proved) when they bet against themselves, but what they did was unethical and downright stupid, bringing the nation's (and eventually the world's) economic engine to the brink of absolute failure. Treason might be a word to be tossed about here, given that the officers of the nation's superbanks are supposed to understand they have the stewardship of the economy, and that includes protecting it as well as exploiting it for personal gain.
But if you want me to believe that "President" Bush (does anyone believe he was the one running the country rather than the old guy with the oversized safe in his office?) had a grasp of the financial situation his ship of state was sailing, I'm going to need to be administered some very strong drugs of the hypnotic/psychedelic family before being locked in the machine from The Ipcress File for a week.
Re: Adam 1 clearly this much more evil than
It always because of the government forcing outstanding Ivy league country club members into giving loans to poor minorities (the root of all evil, the damn poors) not due to hiring the best and brightest to invent financial derivatives to hide money from regulators or promising cushy jobs to said regulators when they serve their two years looking the other way and come work for you.
giving loans to poor minorities... NOT
I have detected a serious WHITEwash here. Because, although it was claimed that the gov policy was to enable poor minorities to become first time home owners (read: cheap, affordable, fixer-uppers that in those days could be acquired outright for less than $150,000), what I witnessed was young, middle-class couples (read that as white, just out of college, first jobs, no savings) being given loans on the strength of a signature, no collateral, for houses valued at double, triple or even more than those minority cases.
The whole fiasco is truly a classic case of the powerful(rich, politically connected) blaming the weak(poor minorities) for all our problems. I don't know how what percentage of Republicans blamed Clinton for forcing the banks to loan to the lower class blacks, but every last one of them has chosen to ignore, or is willfully blind to the trillions gleefully lent to insolvent( by definition, before they ever put pen to loan application) middle class white folk.
Re: Stevie Re: Adam 1 clearly this much more evil than
"..... that were then fraudulently represented as solid investment vehicles...." Yeah, another Indymedia "reader"? Believe me, with the amounts involved and the large number of bloodthirsty lawyers in New York, if there was a grain of truth in that statement then it would have been proven in court many years ago.
"....Then said banks colluded to work an insurance scam under the blanket term Credit Default Swap...." Nice conspiracy theory, do you have any verifiable proof of that libelous statement (ahem, El Reg mod, you may want to check Stevie's claim before leaving it on your forum thread)?
".....what they did was unethical...." Ooh, "unethical"! What's next, you're going to accuse them of being "unfair"? Ethics, as with the price, is set by the market. No-one was complaining when those funds were making a profit, including the millions of people that were happy when the funds were increasing in value, and definitely not the people that got houses and mortgages they should not have had.
"..... and downright stupid...." No, more of risky than stupid. The stupid people were the ones that put politics before economic advice, namely the Democrats that blocked reforms. The markets operate inside the rules set by the politicians, and the Democrat politicians just loved the idea of giving mortgages to people that simply couldn't afford them (of course, that has nothing to do with trying to influence how they might vote....).
"....But if you want me to believe that "President" Bush (does anyone believe he was the one running the country rather than the old guy with the oversized safe in his office?) had a grasp of the financial situation his ship of state was sailing, I'm going to need to be administered some very strong drugs....' Actually, I'd just suggest some actual factual reading to
fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Maybe you were too busy taking said drugs to actually do any research?
4 Matt Bryant
Don't know what indymedia is.
Yes, but I don't doubt you'd disbelieve it.
Actually, according to the congressional records, some of the banking industry giants were complaining, mightily afeared that a crash was around the corner.
When your personal insurance scheme is guaranteed to crash the system your personal wealth is built around, you are stupid.
Did the reading, and was there for some of the fallout. Turns out while people were watching the Florida vote recounting shenanigans, Cheyney was busy filling the presiden's staff roster with his own people. To all intents and purposes, he was running the country until Mr Bush finally started being called to account six years in and began taking notice of who was giving him "advice". A leader who fires anyone who says "no" or "bad idea" is not registering high on the old Stevie IQ detector anyway.
Still no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Shame about that, but I guess if your pals in oh mustn't mention it in case Matt threatens me with libel by proxy again but it rhymes with "Sally Burton" need the biz then Sadam Must Go.
Oh wait. It took a different administration to get that done too, didn't it?
The Bush Legacy: a financial disaster, a phony war and the largest expansion of Big Government since, well, forever.
(Without prejudice) Please take your meds.
Re: Stevie Re: 4 Matt Bryant
"Don't know what indymedia is....." Why am I not surprised. Maybe I should have said "Daily Mirror reader"?
"....Actually, according to the congressional records, some of the banking industry giants were complaining, mightily afeared that a crash was around the corner....." Yet still the Dummicrats did nothing. So, you're admitting they ignored Bush, ignored the Fed, and ignored the bankers - whose advice did the Dummicrats need to actually open their eyes? What, did Sonny and Cher have to get back together and sing it in a song? Seriously, please do tell me who you think had to warn Congress of the subprime problem for them to actually take notice?
"....When your personal insurance scheme is guaranteed to crash the system your personal wealth is built around, you are stupid...." Just about all the banks, pensions and insurance companies I have ever heard of, in the US and Europe, had investments that included CDS polluted with subprime mortgages. Most still trade and swap debts. I'm betting even you have some form of bank account, savings or pension, which means you indirectly invested in them too, so you just called yourself stupid - something we can finally agree on!
"....Turns out while people were watching the Florida vote recounting shenanigans, Cheyney (sic) was busy filling the presiden's (sic) staff roster with his own people...." Blah, blah, blah, nothing to do with how Bush was pointing out the problem to Congress years before 2008. Please try and stay at least within sight of the topic. I get it, a lot of you Lefties have a hardon for mindlessly hating Cheney, but the reality is you can't just use his name and apportion blame for everything to him. Cheney alone was not the majority of members of Congress, the Dummicrats were; Cheney was not Barney Frank running interference for Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac; and Cheney was not in control of Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were spending taxpayers dollars to vacuum up bad mortgage debts in pursuit of Dummicrat housing policies. And if Bush "doesn't register on the old Stevie IQ detector", what does that say about the Dummicrats that ignored Bush's warnings? Are you sure you IQ detector can register IQs greater than double figures as your "musings" make me think you haven't had any experience of anyone with a triple-digit IQ?
".....Still no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq....." Ssscccchhhwwwiiiiinngg! Once again, having dealt himself a losing hand, one of our more "liberal" posters tries to segway off into a topic they feel a lot safer on. And, once again, they fall fowl of the same old problem - baaaahlieving what they have been spoonfed and not doing any research of their own. Start here to fill in at least one of the glaring gaps in your knowledge. Please note the testimony of Major Jarrod Lampier, who was told his discovery of 2400 chemical rockets hidden in a former Iraqi Republican Guards base was "nothing of significance"! Don't tell me, your "WMD detector" is as selective (or just as broken) as your "IQ detector"?
"....Without prejudice...." Whilst prejudice is obviously one of your issues, it is your overwhelming ignorance of the matters at hand that should be giving you the greatest pause for thought. Oh, there's another problem - you and original thought, an unlikely combination given the evidence in your posts.
Look, I know there are a number of you whacktivist, Occupy/Anonyputz types that think all computer crime "against The Man" should receive rapturous applause rather than jail time, but you really need to understand you are a tiny minority, you have no clue when it comes to the working of the law, let alone government or business, and the reality just doesn't change if you mope and whine about it being unfair. TBH, grow up.
Re: Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
Nope, not the Daily Mirror either. You're not very good at this game are you?
As for President (No, really, I am!) Bush: Not only was asleep at the wheel when the economy went for a trip to Antarctica, he was "in charge" when the Fall of the Towers went down. What a great legacy. I doubt his Animatronic self will ever have a speaking part in The Hall of Presidents.
And we can't really talk about the financial crash without mentioning that it was a Bush appointee who engineered the Bailouts for Bonuses fiasco.
Big Government On Toast and the largest undeserved, taxpayer funded, socialist handout in the history of the USA. What a sterling endorsement of the Republican Ideals "president" Bush supposedly stood for when he was elected.
It's odd that if there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and they'd been found, that the Bush administration - desperate to show they hadn't lied to the American People when they went to war - wouldn't have made at least as big a deal as they made "Mission Accomplished". It sort of dilutes the "evidence" a bit.
Thanks for calling out my spelling mistakes. I'm a bad typist. I know you'll sympathize; you keep misspelling "Democrat" yourself.
Re: Stevie Re: Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
"Nope, not the Daily Mirror either. You're not very good at this game are you?...." I know, I'm being far to generous in assigning you the level of inquisitiveness to actual research anything.
"....As for President (No, really, I am!) Bush: Not only was asleep at the wheel when the economy went for a trip to Antarctica....." Again, read the links, try and understand, he warned Congress but the Dummicrats ignored him! Geeze, do you need it in monosyllables and extra-large type? Big clue - in the US, Congress and the Senate create and pass laws. To undo the threat to the economy, Bush needed the co-operation of the Dummicrat-dominated Congress, and they refused on purely political grounds. BTW, the Dummicrats had a majority in Congress when the Iraq War vote was passed too.
"....he was "in charge" when the Fall of the Towers went down...." You obviously missed the whole existence of AQ before the Bush presidency. Maybe if you had read some actual history and news sites you'd know the first proof of AQ plots against the US were found in the FBI raid on the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, 8th November 1990 (a looooong time before GW became POTUS in January 2001). A key part you missed was Bill Clinton's botched attempts to get Osama bin Laden extradited from the Sudan to Saudi Arabia in 1996 (hoping that the Saudis would kill him), and his equally bad attempt to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan with cruise missiles in 1998, which AQ later claimed was the trigger for the 9/11 attacks (including the counter-attempt on the POTUS with Flight 93, the 9/11 4th airliner hijacking which was intended to hit the Whitehouse). Bill Clinton had the two terms to deal with AQ and failed dismally, leaving Bush less than a year as POTUS before 9/11. But Bill was a Dummicrat Prez so you'll no doubt give him a total pass on the whole AQ issue, right?
"....And we can't really talk about the financial crash....' No, you can't, in any informed manner at least! You're socio-political blinkers are simply welded on too tight for that.
"....It's odd that if there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and they'd been found, that the Bush administration - desperate to show they hadn't lied to the American People when they went to war - wouldn't have made at least as big a deal as they made "Mission Accomplished"...." And yet you were completely ignorant of the article I linked to - could it be that your limited pool of sources simply didn't inform you of what was actually happening on the ground? You best not read this site, it might make you wonder why your sources didn't keep you informed of the scale of Saddam's WMD program or how much is still missing.
".... It sort of dilutes the "evidence" a bit....." Yeah, 2400 hidden chemical rockets in just one cache just sound like harmless fireworks, right? Seriously, stop and think for a moment - if the media had reported a single such rocket found hidden in Birmingham, Dearborn, Marseille or any other major Western city with a large Muslim population, do you really think they would have ignored it? Please take your head out of the sand.
Do you have any other conspiracy theories or leftie rants you want to get debunked, or can we go back to the topic of the thread now you have actually learned something?
Re: Stevie Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
So I'm an idiot for reading some website you believe to be a yardstick of idiocy, then I'm a worse idiot for not reading it but I'm an even bigger idiot for reading a UK tabloid which is apparently an even better yardstick of lunacy, then an even bigggerest idiot for not reading it and am so stupid I can't read at all?
This level of fiendish disputation is becoming so convoluted I suspect you've lost track of where you are.
The NYT link you supplied resulted in a blank page when I followed it. Call me Nigel von Hindenthrust the Third but I had better things to do than track down an article suggested by a rabid frother for myself on a workday.
I will take your advice not to read the other site to which you linked, but am left wondering why you bothered to link it if you didn't want me to read it. You must be using that same "logic" you used to cleverly show me how stupid I am despite not a single prediction of my reading habits on your part being true.
Keep digging, Matt. You might yet find WMD of your very own buried deep down there, wherever you are. I'm sure there's a dossier or CIA report saying that they are there.
Oh, and you misspelled "Democrat" again. I think your browser's dictionary must be corrupted.
Re: Stevie Re: Stevie Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
"So I'm an idiot for reading some website you believe to be a yardstick of idiocy, then I'm a worse idiot for not reading it but I'm an even bigger idiot for reading a UK tabloid which is apparently an even better yardstick of lunacy, then an even bigggerest idiot for not reading it and am so stupid I can't read at all?....." And where did I call you an idiot? TBH, there's no need to when the ease with which your posts are debunked provides a simple measure of how limited your research, knowledge and thought process really are.
"....The NYT link you supplied resulted in a blank page...." Here's both links in full, though I do suggest you get the help of a responsible adult with reading them (if you know any):
Re: Stevie Stevie Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
Blimey, Matt, is that you down that hole?
Impressive depth for one man and a shovel. Find any chemical weapons yet? There's some old rich old white men up here that are desperate for news of some that real people can actually see and believe in.
They are also interested in some sort of yellow cake. Apparently they went looking for some a few years back, caused a big fuss and ended up forgetting to bring it home. I guess they don't have Marks'n'Sparks or Tescos where they live.
Re: Stevie Stevie Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
"Blimey, Matt, is that you down that hole?...." So, we can add hallucinations and the memory span of a goldfish to your already long list of issues?
"....Find any chemical weapons yet?...." I see the problem here - 2400 WMDs in one cache alone presents an insurmountable obstacle to someone that can only count as high as it takes to use all their fingers and toes. Admit it, you didn't bother to follow either link - scared it might upset your carefully constructed "reality"? BTW, nice to see you're still camping waaaaaaay off topic, presumably because you got so trounced on the original subject. It's not even as if you can try and escape the humiliation by claiming "trolling" seeing as your efforts would embarrass the most uninhibited and uneducated schoolboy troll. Which can only lead me to conclude you also failed to find a responsible adult to help you. This is my surprised face, honest.
Indeed, from the frantic, flailing and unquestioning nature of your posts, I would also have to conclude you are one of Lauri Love's only-ever-met-on-the-Internet buddies. We have the ignorance of the law, the unquestioning acceptance of hacktivist "ideals", the wannabe-rebel socio-political "viewpoint" (if you can call blinkered a viewpoint), and the complete inability to actually discuss a point in a coherent manner - you are an Occupy/Dickileaks/Anonyputz groupie, probably a Corbyn/Bernie supporter, and live in your parents' basement. No wonder Lauri is your hero. I'd claim my prize but I'm too busy laughing at you.
Re: Stevie Stevie Stevie 4 Matt Bryant
I'm sorry, were you serious when you showed me a story about rusting, leaking munitions from (and I'm quoting from the article you linked) a program shut down in the eighties and tried to pass it off as the stuff that George the Second used as the justification for going to war? I thought you were joking. I was expecting you to link me to pictures of the RV sarin factories that were in the press releases of the time as a serious supporting refutation of my comments.
By that yardstick we should be invading Bosnia on account of their huge stockpiles of landmines. More and more dangerous stuff was found during my lifetime as unexploded Nazi blockbusters in my home town every time they removed the foundations of an old building.
Now you are saying I read another of your websites that are bellweathers of idiocy? Wrong again Matt. You've been swinging and missing since you came up to bat. Ever thought about giving up the prediction game? You really aren't very good at it. And it looks like your automatic spell correction is badly broken. I warned you about your spellchecker. The two technologies are closely linked.
As for the met-on-the-internet lawyers, that would be you. You were the one calling into the electronic void for somone else to sue me for saying something that you took exception to. In point of fact I pretty much stopped taking you seriously at that point. There's a type of poster here who "goes there" early in the dialog and there's nothing any of them have to say that is worth the air they breathed to say it (generally).
And uncontrolled laughing for no readilly apparent reason is not only creepy, it is a sure sign that one needs a break or medical attention. I suggested you take your meds on my first post. I was joking then, but I can see I was perhaps close to the mark.
Spying is part of the game of baseball. This link highlights a kind of spying that is often detectable by the opposition, and thus subject to immediate retribution:
I'd also point out that while teams do spend a lot of money, millions even, in scouting and recording their findings, the value of a player database to a team that already has a player database, is much lower. The fact that the person's employer was able to escape penalty even suggests that he did it for a lark. If we lived in a world where computer crime were routinely caught and punished, this man might have received a different sentence, such as a $50,000 fine. It's a today rendition of the "Bloody Code".