Can I just ask why you think it's inconsiderate?
I've seen this several times over the last half-dozen years. It ranges from including 9-11 as part of a modern setting (as a rather significant historical event, with wide-reaching implications, not a scenario for play) to postulating in-setting explanations (occult wars, etc.) for the tsunami disaster. And now, a book inspired by New Orleans. Not by Katrina, but by the city herself.
Why would these things be inconsiderate to the victims? Do they trivialize the event? Do the various video games trivialize WWII? Does Platoon trivialize the Vietnam War? I don't think so. In one way, they pay homage to the gravity of the event (when done properly and seriously). In another, they give us an outlet to deal with the event, in a way that gives us a little distance (wouldn't it be nice to play the espionage agents who stopped the 9-11 tragedy?). And, finally, for me at least, it helps make them more real. For those of us who play in modern settings, incorporating current events into the game is part of the genre. Ignoring them means that they aren't important enough to play with.
I'm honestly not trying to troll or anything. But, I've seen this attitude come up several times, and I don't understand it.
One of the things that caught my attention was that Spitzer was charging them with trespass, under the common law definition. This has two interesting ramifications.
First, that programs running on your computer are considered to be on your property. The precedent that this sets is non-trivial. Does it mean that damage to data on your computer can be covered by your homeowner's insurance? Is it still considered to be trespass when it's on a laptop, connected at a hotspot outside your home? And, what ramifications does that have for your online presence? If the spyware is trespassing on my property, am I considered to be on a business' property when I'm visiting their site? Can I sue the business for giving me the spyware, in the same way you can sue someone for inadequate physical safety precautions?
Also, the application of common law to spyware is interesting. Essentially, that's saying, "This is obviously against the spirit of the law, even though it isn't covered by a specific law to date." (Yes, the concept of common law is significantly more complex, but I'm a geek, not a lawyer.) Given that online threats are evolving far faster than any legislature can keep up with, this might be an interesting precedent for still prosecuting, or at least suing, those who perpetrate such threats.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I just ask why you think it's inconsiderate? I've seen this several times over the last half-dozen years. It ranges from including 9-11 as part of a modern setting (as a rather significant historical event, with wide-reaching implications, not a scenario for play) to postulating in-setting explanations (occult wars, etc.) for the tsunami disaster. And now, a book inspired by New Orleans. Not by Katrina, but by the city herself. Why would these things be inconsiderate to the victims? Do they trivialize the event? Do the various video games trivialize WWII? Does Platoon trivialize the Vietnam War? I don't think so. In one way, they pay homage to the gravity of the event (when done properly and seriously). In another, they give us an outlet to deal with the event, in a way that gives us a little distance (wouldn't it be nice to play the espionage agents who stopped the 9-11 tragedy?). And, finally, for me at least, it helps make them more real. For those of us who play in modern settings, incorporating current events into the game is part of the genre. Ignoring them means that they aren't important enough to play with. I'm honestly not trying to troll or anything. But, I've seen this attitude come up several times, and I don't understand it.
One of the things that caught my attention was that Spitzer was charging them with trespass, under the common law definition. This has two interesting ramifications. First, that programs running on your computer are considered to be on your property. The precedent that this sets is non-trivial. Does it mean that damage to data on your computer can be covered by your homeowner's insurance? Is it still considered to be trespass when it's on a laptop, connected at a hotspot outside your home? And, what ramifications does that have for your online presence? If the spyware is trespassing on my property, am I considered to be on a business' property when I'm visiting their site? Can I sue the business for giving me the spyware, in the same way you can sue someone for inadequate physical safety precautions? Also, the application of common law to spyware is interesting. Essentially, that's saying, "This is obviously against the spirit of the law, even though it isn't covered by a specific law to date." (Yes, the concept of common law is significantly more complex, but I'm a geek, not a lawyer.) Given that online threats are evolving far faster than any legislature can keep up with, this might be an interesting precedent for still prosecuting, or at least suing, those who perpetrate such threats.