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 ..."
It's like saying, "There's no difference between jaywalking and blowing up train tracks. Both of them are disruptive to traffic. One just happens to be more extreme." Because some things are deemed allowable, and some things are deemed not, and so we have the law to decide what people can do and what people can't.
Well, yes. If the motivation was to disrupt traffic, then they are of the same morality. One is just a lot worse than the other. In this particular case, the law has decided that both are not allowable. Your point?
I didn't say it's not a huge difference. I repeatedly pointed out that one is more extreme than the other. However, both are morally questionable for precisely the same reasons.
In Borat's case, he exploited laws meant to protect journalism. Not everyone signed a release form allowing themselves to be in the movie. One person who hadn't decided to sue, and the court ruled that because he appeared for only a brief period (less than 30s, or something similar), no release form was necessary. This allowance wasn't so that people like Borat can legitimately do what they did - it was to allow journalists and documentary makers to do their tasks without much difficulty. Cohen exploited those laws. The fact that what he did was allowed by the law was merely legal maneuvering: It satisfied the letter of the law, but not the intent. It certainly wasn't because the law had decided that his scenario is OK.
Beetle B.
This.