Slashdot Mirror
The Outing of Pranknet
An anonymous reader writes "The Smoking Gun recently published a story on their investigation and outing of Pranknet, an online cabal that aims to take pranks to the next level. Their legacy includes thousands of dollars of damage, and many harassed souls. Many of the pranks have clear criminal implications. Reading their report may send chills down your collective spines." From the linked article: "Coalescing in an online chat room, members of the group, known as Pranknet, use the telephone to carry out cruel and outrageous hoaxes, which they broadcast live around-the-clock on the Internet. Masquerading as hotel employees, emergency service workers, and representatives of fire alarm companies, 'Dex' and his cohorts have successfully prodded unwitting victims to destroy hotel rooms and lobbies, set off sprinkler systems, activate fire alarms, and damage assorted fast food restaurants. But while Pranknet's hoaxes have caused millions of dollars in damages, it is the group's efforts to degrade and frighten targets that makes it even more odious ..."
Sigh, the Rodney King riots had very little if anything to do with Rodney King. They were much more heavily influenced by the murder of a black girl by a Korean shopkeeper than by anything that the police did. The verdict was just the last straw. It's not exactly a coincidence that the black community focused so heavily on Korean own establishments.
Birds of a feather indeed.
From the same link:
"Markle pulled the Arby's prank in tandem with Shawn Powell, a 24-year-old felon who also happens to be a convicted sex offender (Powell's victim was an eight-year-old female relative)."
It looks more like a couple of child rapists fronting as a "prank" group than anything else, I bet there's far more to this story and I bet it's going to get very ugly once full investigations take place.
Great. Your cause is correct. But your "solution"...
You are doing what everyone says: EXACTLY THE WRONGEST THING POSSIBLE!
First you totally fail (sorry), by confusing force with motivation. A common mistake of >95% of the population. It's one of those things that work shortly, and then make everything even worse. Like drugs. And just like drugs, people tend to apply more, when it stops working. So it's not a question, *if* this ends in a catastrophe, but *when*.
Then you kick him on the street. Which will help exactly no-one. I was on the street. So I can tell you that all it brings is depression, and the will to destroy yourself. Usually it ends in some relative or friend helping you, a lucky situation, life-long bum life, or death from drug-related problems.
And forcing people into jobs they do not want, is also a root of what is wrong with our society. A job you do not want is one that is not payed well enough to be worth the hassle. Which in other words means, that some ass is profiting off your back. So the trick is to find people who want to give you enough money for what you like to do. (If what you like to do is not worth enough money to them, you can become more efficient, so that you get more per time unit. Or you have to find something else that you like.)
But all in all, it *must* be something that you like. After all you are giving one third of your life (or half of your life awake) away for it.
Also, what you see as "constructive" is not a global absolute. It is completely relative. The only global meaning is, that it yields something positive for him. (Which his current "job" does, apparently. Problem: Usually nobody wants to give him money for it. But I know situations, where people would pay for that kind of service.)
Ok, now for the cause and how to do it right: :)
First of all, you need someone that he respects. This is essential, to be able to tell him anything that he will actually consider.
Then that someone needs to create a positive motivating gradient. (Something that naturally gives the feeling of wanting to go there by yourself.)
This starts by offering life-improving things. Things that are way better *in his eyes* than what he does right now.
Then you can add a short burst of negativity to get it going. But *only ONE time*. A bit like a zero point experience to start over.
Who do you think will not go towards that way better "portal of salvation", when in that situation? Nobody!
Or as a simple conclusion: You have to make people want to do something in a positive way, instead of you wanting them to do it (in a negative way).
Then you will get lasting results, and that person will become very productive, while everybody is happy.
P.S.: Also, I'd recommend checking yourself for repressed anger, that usually is the source of reactions like yours. Without it, you can also improve your life and have more fun, while not being annoyed so much by things like this. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
There's a very strong norm against publishing phone numbers, addresses, etc in journalism (esp. criminal and political journalism). I readily agree with this norm -- it seems that publishing such information can invite vigilantism and generate life-long problems for the accused without the benefit of a fair trial. I would generally expect journalists to abide this norm in news reports on robbery, drug trafficking, arson, embezzlement, etc.
Never-the-less, I felt a twinge of satisfaction while reading phone numbers and street addresses in TSG's article. I wouldn't mind if these serial harassers received a series of harassing phone calls.
Then again, TSG accuses Pranknet of systematically violating the informal norms that their victims rely on; is it proper for TSG to turn around and break an informal norm of journalism?
I'd like to better understand the ethical question here. Perhaps TSG's approach is the only way to deal with Pranknet? Perhaps it's poetic justice? Has TSG made a special ethical judgement regarding Pranknet? On what basis? Does TSG habitually violate journalistic ethics? Do the participants in Pranknet deserve worse treatment than anyone else accused of crime? How would our opinion change if TSG had presented the story differently?
"Foisting class warfare stereotypes on sheeple who know no better is how leftists got into office"
No, I think you'll find it's having a hard-right President and Congress commit war crimes by launching an illegal war while crashing the economy which is what elects leftists into office.
In 2000, I was pretty much indifferent to the whole Gore vs Bush gridlock. "They're both the same," I said. "Republicans, Democrats, left and right... they all have the same policies." After all, could anyone be more meh than Clinton? Took him til 1999 to release the crypto export provisions. Invaded Yugoslavia. Slept around like a Frenchman. This Bush guy was talking about "humble" foreign policy. Okay, I thought. They're America, they might be screwing Russia over, and not removing their nukes fast enough, and still trying to control the world... but at least they're not outright stupid.
And then I watched in horror how much, much worse it could get - what happens when you have a Republican rather than Democratic president who "responds" in a lather of panic and pride to a fairly small terrorist incident. Kabloom! United Nations? What United Nations? We'll baldly lie outright to the world if we want! We're Mericka, eff yeah! Bombs away!
A few years later your party of choice picks about the scariest pair of gun-crazy candidates you could imagine to replace Bush, and the world goes "Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. comma. Uniform. Sierra. Alpha? Hotel Tango Hotel? Over? Hello? Anyone in there, Major Tom?"
And then a miracle occurs.
And that's how come you have a quiet, intelligent, soft-spoken mixed-race Democrat representing you to the world. And the world breathed a sigh of relief and muttered "wow, and here we thought you Yanks really were a bunch of fascist jerks... guess we were wrong. When you've exhausted all other options, sometimes you do make the right choice. C'mon over here and give us a big, manly trade and arms reduction deal. We know we'll hate ourselves for it in the morning... but you're just so sexy right now!"
Yeah we know Obama's just JFK and Clinton reborn. We know he's stepped down Iraq just to ramp up Afghanistan. We know he's a master of the velvet glove of American imperialism instead of the naked iron fist. (Bush naked. Either of them. Brrrrrrrrr. Bad brain.)
But, well, he's half-black. And he got elected! That's, whuh, we still can't quite stop pinching ourselves. If you guys don't realise what a massive foreign policy boost you guys get just from having him there...wow.
And domestically, so he flushed money down the bankster hole... okay, that might have been smart or dumb, not sure yet. But healthcare reform? Seriously, THAT'S what you'd fight to STOP? We here in NZ look at American-style healthcare as a Very Very Bad Idea which we flirted with in the 1980s-90s, and thank goodness we didn't completely go that route. It looks like hell, and we're so glad we don't have the mess you now have to fix.
You're welcome.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Are you kidding? So far the majority of stories involving someone acting like a sociopathic prick online, have attracted a number of wannabe sociopathic pricks that lionized the perp on one or more of the following grounds:
- muahahaha, now we're the ones with the power. Phear us! Payback time for the former school bully... and the cheerleader who didn't want to be my GF... and the jock who got her as a GF... and that geography teacher who got me bored to death... (Basically as if having been a victim once is all the reason and rationalization needed for victimizing others in turn. Newsflash: if anyone wasn't a bully just because they lacked the power and/or balls, but turns into one as soon as they can, they never had a moral high ground to start with.)
- OMG, if they were too stupid to defend themselves, they deserved it. (A.k.a., "might makes right.")
- more generally, if it's high tech and not everyone can do it, then it's right to do it if you can. (A.k.a., "might makes right.")
- It's just bits and bytes, and information wants to be free!! (Especially when said information is someone else's credit card number;))
- if it slips through some loophole of an existing law, despite being blatantly against its spirit, then it's morally right. The proposed new amendment against it is blatantly an attempt to control more people by criminalizing something as benign as terrorizing others. Cue quotes out of context from Richelieu and Ayn Rand.
- if it's already illegal, that law is blatantly an attempt to control more people by criminalizing something as benign as terrorizing others. Cue quotes out of context from Richelieu and Ayn Rand.
Etc.
In fact, my best guess is that now the majority opinion is against it only because it was _social_ engineering, and we don't relate that well to that. It involves talking to people and... eew ;) If it were about slipping someone a trojan to terrorize them via their computer, you'd see 200+ posts just defending the perp and blaming the victims.
So maybe it is stuff that matters. Reminding more wannabe sociopaths that doing it over the internet is no shield, is a good thing.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.