|
This is a throwaway account, for numerous reasons.
I have a dilemma. Recently I have come into possession of an email of a person I dislike highly who goes to my college. There is a story behind this, but I don't think it is relevant to my question.
In this email, i have found out that he has been giving out test answers to certain students (he has access to these tests due to his job/position he has at my college). I happen to know one of these students personally as well, which makes this personal to me. This along with the knowledge of him cheating on his girlfriend helps me verify that he is indeed a scumbag,
So now my question is do I sit here and do nothing and pretend I never saw it? Honestly the reason I logged on his account in the first place was to look for some type of dirt (a reason that again does not matter to my question), but this was way more then I expected.
Or do I report this, as its terrible how someone can just give away free answers where there are those who put so much effort. And as the fact that he honestly deserves it in my opinion, but I dont know how i would deal with the fact that I might be ruining peoples lives.
I am not sure what to do.
User was banned for this post.
 
|
If it's actual proof (and not just a casual conversation that could be joking), you have an obligation to turn him in. So many other students are attempting to pass courses with honest hard work, that it would be irresponsible to not penalize those who cheat. Academic integrity is a huge deal in most (if not all) schools, and as long as you're certain about what he did, then you should come forward with concrete evidence.
The only thing that's questionable is how you obtained this knowledge. If you learned it by invading someone else's privacy, then you're pretty much a jerk too. Also, can't he just delete his e-mail and remove your evidence?
|
Stay out of other people's email accounts.
|
Calgary25991 Posts
On April 14 2013 21:47 zf wrote:
Stay out of other people's email accounts.
Seriously. You need to examine your life if you are logging into someone else's email specifically looking to cause trouble. Stop it.
|
If you wanna turn him in you're probably gonna have to go too, logging into someones email is pretty much a no-go.
|
On April 14 2013 21:58 Chill wrote:Seriously. You need to examine your life if you are logging into someone else's email specifically looking to cause trouble. Stop it.
Basically, if you report this and they ask you how you got the info, the momenet you say, "I was on his email," you are gone. That is a worse offense than cheating; that is hacking, which is a fineable offense, and they can sue you for personal injury since you will get both of you and this other guy kicked out of college. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you can hack their email. On the subject of the cheating, you have fucked yourself over here, you have come across information illegally, which is something the other guy can say and then be protected from because of the bill of rights. On the other hand, now you know this guy cheats and you are no better for it. Just keep quiet, just because people are cheating doesn't mean you need to make it your battle.
|
Report to the professors that some of their test answers are being leaked. If it's for an upcoming test, you can provide some answers as proof.
Do it anonymously and dont mention any names.
|
Report him anonymously, and provide proof.
EDIT: Zocat, uhhh, why not provide names? If you're going to report cheating, you should damn well be willing to report the individuals involved.
Not that I'm advocating this and not that this makes you any less scummy, but there's a really easy, believable explanation you can come up with to explain your presence on this guy's email...
|
Yes, I think you have a moral responsibility to turn him in, but at the same time you made a mistake by going on his account.the best bet is to report him anonymously somehow. Maybe forward the emails to the prof or something, whatever provides proof while keeping your name out of it. Good luck man.
|
I'll be honest here. Considering you can be thrown under the bus here, let it be.
It's not worth your time. If you've ever read the great gatsby, you are like nick carraway at the end. He doesn't tell the police what he knows about wilson killing gatsby because it benefits him more even if justice would be served otherwise.
|
On April 15 2013 01:10 Bippzy wrote:
I'll be honest here. Considering you can be thrown under the bus here, let it be.
It's not worth your time. If you've ever read the great gatsby, you are like nick carraway at the end. He doesn't tell the police what he knows about wilson killing gatsby because it benefits him more even if justice would be served otherwise.
spoiler! you bastard.
|
either send copies of the email to the people who will get him fired or blackmail him if your feeling hardcore.
definitely do one of the two though.
w/e you do, do it anonymously because you got the emails illegally. or at least I assume that deliberately accessing an email account that isnt yours is illegal in your country, if its not then w/e. go wild.
|
Dont log on to other peoples email accounts.
|
On April 14 2013 21:58 Chill wrote:Seriously. You need to examine your life if you are logging into someone else's email specifically looking to cause trouble. Stop it.
This, a thousand times. Deliberately invading someone's privacy looking for dirt to purposely screw with their life/career is far more malicious than someone enabling willing people to risk their own academic careers through cheating.
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On April 14 2013 21:47 zf wrote:
Stay out of other people's email accounts.
Seriously. While academic dishonesty is bad, the felony you can acquire by fiddling around in people's emails is worse.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 15 2013 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 21:58 Chill wrote:On April 14 2013 21:47 zf wrote:
Stay out of other people's email accounts. Seriously. You need to examine your life if you are logging into someone else's email specifically looking to cause trouble. Stop it. This, a thousand times. Deliberately invading someone's privacy looking for dirt to purposely screw with their life/career is far more malicious than someone enabling willing people to risk their own academic careers through cheating.
Uh... they're both pretty fucked up.
You shouldn't go into other people's email accounts, but if you work at a school and you're giving test answers to certain students, your career deserves to be over. They're both incredibly huge offenses. I don't know that academic fraud by a school employee isn't illegal either.
It's not just someone who writes essays for money, but has no association to the school. This is an employee using their position to do it.
|
On April 14 2013 22:21 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 21:58 Chill wrote:On April 14 2013 21:47 zf wrote:
Stay out of other people's email accounts. Seriously. You need to examine your life if you are logging into someone else's email specifically looking to cause trouble. Stop it. Basically, if you report this and they ask you how you got the info, the momenet you say, "I was on his email," you are gone. That is a worse offense than cheating; that is hacking, which is a fineable offense, and they can sue you for personal injury since you will get both of you and this other guy kicked out of college. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you can hack their email. On the subject of the cheating, you have fucked yourself over here, you have come across information illegally, which is something the other guy can say and then be protected from because of the bill of rights. On the other hand, now you know this guy cheats and you are no better for it. Just keep quiet, just because people are cheating doesn't mean you need to make it your battle.
There's nothing saying that the OP is from the States, but even if he is, wikipedia still says that his evidence is good, it doesn't matter if he came across it illegally or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule
Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.
If I were you, I would report him anonymously through email based on what you've told us and assuming he's getting something in return for the tests. Keep in mind, this also probably means that a lot of the people he was giving answers to will get in trouble as well.
Do you know why he's giving out the test answers though? Is he selling them? Asking for favours? Doing it out of the goodness of his heart? If he's selling them, the guy is a scumbag, and I'd report him. You said he has access to the tests because of his position, which means that as an employee of the school, he's abusing his position for profit and compromising the academic integrity of the school at the same time. He deserves to lose his job then.
If you're not ok with potentially fucking up someone's life though, and potentially a lot of the people who he gave test answers to, depending on how seriously your school takes cheating, you could always confront him about it. Tell the guy that you know about what he's doing, but you don't want to get him kicked out of school, so ask him to stop and tell him that if he doesn't, you'll report him to the school. This is pretty ballsy though, and could maybe backfire. You also won't be able to use the email evidence, since he'll know it was you.
So, I guess the last way to deal with it, and it might not actually do anything depending on how people would take it, is to just report to the school and all the profs that their tests are being leaked and used by students to cheat without naming anyone. You won't have any proof for this though, depending on what the emails actually contain, and so it depends on if the profs believe you or not if anything happens. If they don't believe you or they're lazy, they won't do anything and nothing will change. Otherwise, a few of them might change their tests, maybe. So, this is that way where it's less likely anyone will get in trouble, but it's also less likely it will stop at all.
That's basically my thought process on the whole thing as you've presented it, do with it what you will. For reference, I'm a third-year university student who also works as a teaching assistant, so maybe I take cheating more seriously than some and feel an obligation to do something about it.
p.s. How did you get access to his email, if you don't mind me asking?
p.p.s. I'm going to echo some other people here, and say that if you got access to his email illegally, that's pretty fucked up too, and you shouldn't do it again.
|
If this dude is rich, blackmail him anonymously. If he isn't, just turn him in already. You've already committed the sin, now get off the toilet and flush already.
|
I think you should consider how much you want to fuck with his life carefully, and then act accordingly. I would argue that because this is a personal matter, you should forget the socially established norm that cheaters need to be punished, and look at this only on a personal level. Also you could always hold on to the information as insurance by getting proof and saving it for a time when he is causing problems for you. If such an opportunity never presents itself, you could leave it be and move on. This way any harm visited on him belongs in the what did you expect to happen category, and not the someone is being really mean to me category.
edit: forgot an article
|
On April 14 2013 23:11 Zocat wrote:
Report to the professors that some of their test answers are being leaked. If it's for an upcoming test, you can provide some answers as proof.
Do it anonymously and dont mention any names.
This seems like the best answer that I would do. Academic dishonesty is huge but you'll never be forgiven if people know that you were the one who snitched (and looked into his emails). Not to mention the legal repercussions for yourself as well. It's a tough decision but I think if you alert the professors that there IS cheating going on with an anonymous note or something, they might not be able to trace it back to you and you might also get the cheaters caught.
Edit: WTF is up with people telling the op to blackmail him. That's about the WORST thing you could do in this situation. I hope they aren't being serious.
|
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished.
|
haha cecil you deliciously evil schmuck xD
|
On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished.
LOL. Oh man is that evil  .
|
On April 15 2013 02:30 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On April 14 2013 21:58 Chill wrote:On April 14 2013 21:47 zf wrote:
Stay out of other people's email accounts. Seriously. You need to examine your life if you are logging into someone else's email specifically looking to cause trouble. Stop it. This, a thousand times. Deliberately invading someone's privacy looking for dirt to purposely screw with their life/career is far more malicious than someone enabling willing people to risk their own academic careers through cheating. Uh... they're both pretty fucked up. You shouldn't go into other people's email accounts, but if you work at a school and you're giving test answers to certain students, your career deserves to be over. They're both incredibly huge offenses. I don't know that academic fraud by a school employee isn't illegal either. It's not just someone who writes essays for money, but has no association to the school. This is an employee using their position to do it.
They're both wrong of course. I'm just saying looking for dirt to fuck someone over is malicious. The other, while also pretty fucked up, at least isn't done out of purposeful desire to inflict harm.
|
On April 15 2013 08:19 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. LOL. Oh man is that evil .
How is that evil? sounds like the best course of action to me. Doesn't get you caught and just brings attention to something that should get attention. I mean, the OP being a douchebag for hacking into someone's email is another matter. The guy is doing actual shady shit. I would obviously be against it if he were trying to screw him over for other stuff, like cheating on his gf or something like doing drugs or selling alcohol to minors, but I think we can all universally agree that giving people answers to a test should be punished.
|
Blow the whistle. Wikileak that shit. Submit it anonymously to the school paper if there is one, otherwise vice principal or w/e, someone with administrative duties.
|
On April 15 2013 09:13 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 08:19 radscorpion9 wrote:On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. LOL. Oh man is that evil . How is that evil? sounds like the best course of action to me. Doesn't get you caught and just brings attention to something that should get attention. I mean, the OP being a douchebag for hacking into someone's email is another matter. The guy is doing actual shady shit. I would obviously be against it if he were trying to screw him over for other stuff, like cheating on his gf or something like doing drugs or selling alcohol to minors, but I think we can all universally agree that giving people answers to a test should be punished.
Gmail tracks the IPs of the computers from which you log into an account. I'm sure other email systems do the same thing, so OP should keep that in mind and plot accordingly.
|
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell.
|
On April 15 2013 10:24 govie wrote:
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell.
Eh, I don't think this is positive. He did what needed to be done; the ends justify the means. No harm was done to anyone by going into that email account. There's no point in punishing the dude that went into the email, other than to uphold some abstract rules. I don't feel such rules should be enforced in a situation where they don't seem to bring about a positive change.
|
On April 15 2013 10:32 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 10:24 govie wrote:
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell. Eh, I don't think this is positive. He did what needed to be done; the ends justify the means. No harm was done to anyone by going into that email account. There's no point in punishing the dude that went into the email, other than to uphold some abstract rules. I don't feel such rules should be enforced in a situation where they don't seem to bring about a positive change.
With that mindset u can justify allmost anything, now everyone can play the crooked police officer
Edit :
The point is he violated the law and someone privacy as a civilian (he is not the police) because he dislikes that person. His reasons for obtaining this information and to violate the law, were to hurt that person and is purely based on hate. Pure hate. This whole story has nothing to do with doing good or justice but with pure hate. And now he is trying to justify his bad pactises by saying he cheats on his girlfriend etc... He even states that his friends benefit from whatever that person is doing, but tries to distort that into he hurts my friends in the longrun. OP is a douchebag with a serious problem.
If u violate someones privacy u will allways dig up shit that u can be used against that person. No one is 100% clean.
OP is a douchebag as i see it.There are rules and laws and breaking one to frame someone because u dislike him is shit.
|
On April 15 2013 10:42 govie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 10:32 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 15 2013 10:24 govie wrote:
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell. Eh, I don't think this is positive. He did what needed to be done; the ends justify the means. No harm was done to anyone by going into that email account. There's no point in punishing the dude that went into the email, other than to uphold some abstract rules. I don't feel such rules should be enforced in a situation where they don't seem to bring about a positive change. With that mindset u can justify allmost anything, now everyone can play the crooked police officer
Crooked police officer sounds like one that commits crimes that have a negative impact on society, like selling drugs or slave trafficking. I think you meant everyone could be a vigilante.
|
On April 15 2013 10:46 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 10:42 govie wrote:On April 15 2013 10:32 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 15 2013 10:24 govie wrote:
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell. Eh, I don't think this is positive. He did what needed to be done; the ends justify the means. No harm was done to anyone by going into that email account. There's no point in punishing the dude that went into the email, other than to uphold some abstract rules. I don't feel such rules should be enforced in a situation where they don't seem to bring about a positive change. With that mindset u can justify allmost anything, now everyone can play the crooked police officer Crooked police officer sounds like one that commits crimes that have a negative impact on society, like selling drugs or slave trafficking. I think you meant everyone could be a vigilante.
Saying that hacking people's email is OK so long as you can prove that there was no "negative impact on society" seems like it would have a pretty negative impact. I guess post office employees should be free to open everyone's mail too. After all, if they happen to catch a criminal, the ends justified the means.
|
On April 15 2013 11:05 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 10:46 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 15 2013 10:42 govie wrote:On April 15 2013 10:32 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 15 2013 10:24 govie wrote:
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell. Eh, I don't think this is positive. He did what needed to be done; the ends justify the means. No harm was done to anyone by going into that email account. There's no point in punishing the dude that went into the email, other than to uphold some abstract rules. I don't feel such rules should be enforced in a situation where they don't seem to bring about a positive change. With that mindset u can justify allmost anything, now everyone can play the crooked police officer Crooked police officer sounds like one that commits crimes that have a negative impact on society, like selling drugs or slave trafficking. I think you meant everyone could be a vigilante. Saying that hacking people's email is OK so long as you can prove that there was no "negative impact on society" seems like it would have a pretty negative impact. I guess post office employees should be free to open everyone's mail too. After all, if they happen to catch a criminal, the ends justified the means.
Never said other people should do it.
|
Well, I don't think anyone's saying OP isn't a scumbag, but he's already done the deed and soiled his hands. At this point, he might as well go through with it.
And since he's a scumbag, he may as well turn in the dude anonymously. It's not as if turning himself in in the process will make his scumminess any less scummy, you know?
|
On April 15 2013 10:24 govie wrote:
The burgler 1 catches the burgler 2 in the act... turns him in... burgler 1 walks free and has the loot... sick shit.
U should not mess with someones email, u are just as plane dirty as that guy. If u do turn him in, tell them how u got the info aswell. That would be best. Yes, u could get punished but that would be fair aswell.
This is so ridiculous I actually chuckled to myself. There`s no way in hell you would do this, why would you even suggest it.
|
On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished.
Oh, good, I was just about to suggest exactly this. Keeps you anonymous, guy gets what he deserves. Unfortunately for you, your friend gets burned too, unless you decide to not forward that particular one/delete those emails. But then the original owner of the email may be able to trace you, so you probably shouldn't be selective about it.
|
On April 15 2013 10:22 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 09:13 Itsmedudeman wrote:On April 15 2013 08:19 radscorpion9 wrote:On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. LOL. Oh man is that evil . How is that evil? sounds like the best course of action to me. Doesn't get you caught and just brings attention to something that should get attention. I mean, the OP being a douchebag for hacking into someone's email is another matter. The guy is doing actual shady shit. I would obviously be against it if he were trying to screw him over for other stuff, like cheating on his gf or something like doing drugs or selling alcohol to minors, but I think we can all universally agree that giving people answers to a test should be punished. Gmail tracks the IPs of the computers from which you log into an account. I'm sure other email systems do the same thing, so OP should keep that in mind and plot accordingly.
Good point. There are websites on the internet that allows you to hide your IP/give you an IP from a different country. Non-americans use this to access Pandora. Alternatively, you could always use a internet cafe computer or something.
|
Report him of course. You shouldn't think of what other people think of you. This is a case of illegal behavior. And it is personal to you, is irrelevant. You will feel good doing justice.
|
Try to give an anonymous tip, that's probably the best way to go about it without involving yourself in the situation.
|
Setup a forwarding filter that copies all his email to a dummy account you can access for bigger fish! Hehe
|
I don't really understand why so many people resond along the line "hacking into his email is worse than what he did". No guys, it isn't. Your valuable precisous beloved email is not the center of the world. It obviously wasn't the nicest thing to do, but the cheating that the OP uncovered is on a completely different level of bad.
Turn him in, as anonymously as possible. Do not feel bad about it, it is a good thing that you help to stop this and the only people getting help do absolutely deserve it. Also, considering how this thread went, I would never ask for seriously advice on TL again if I were you.
|
Yeah I'm with farv on this one. It's debatable on a personable level which you might consider more despicable an act or whether it even matters at all, but now that you've committed the sin, you might as well follow through and report the cheaters. Whether or not it's truly a moral obligation is also debatable, but I think pragmatically it's the best action at this point.
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
In this thread we have people committing felonies and random people from an internet forum encouraging other people to further commit felonies, in order to expose a scumbag.
Both of you should be fired. Only one of you would go to jail.
|
On April 15 2013 19:46 FakeDouble wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. Oh, good, I was just about to suggest exactly this. Keeps you anonymous, guy gets what he deserves. Unfortunately for you, your friend gets burned too, unless you decide to not forward that particular one/delete those emails. But then the original owner of the email may be able to trace you, so you probably shouldn't be selective about it.
Oh and on the point of "my friends will get caught too" and directed at the OP: screw them. They're cheating, so what if they are your friends. The status of "your friend" means nothing to the world and holds no value whatsoever. Grow up a little and consider things outside the realm of your personal bubble.
|
On April 16 2013 04:01 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 19:46 FakeDouble wrote:On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. Oh, good, I was just about to suggest exactly this. Keeps you anonymous, guy gets what he deserves. Unfortunately for you, your friend gets burned too, unless you decide to not forward that particular one/delete those emails. But then the original owner of the email may be able to trace you, so you probably shouldn't be selective about it. Oh and on the point of "my friends will get caught too" and directed at the OP: screw them. They're cheating, so what if they are your friends. The status of "your friend" means nothing to the world and holds no value whatsoever. Grow up a little and consider things outside the realm of your personal bubble.
lol......friendship is in the eye of the beholder. Who cares what "the world" (lol?) thinks, if you care about someone enough and they fuck up, it is conceivable that you would want to help them. There are a number of people in my life who, given past experiences, I would lie for in an instant. That you've never had friends like that doesn't mean that no one else does, nor does it mean that their different treatment of friendship is in any way wrong.
|
On April 16 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 04:01 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 15 2013 19:46 FakeDouble wrote:On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. Oh, good, I was just about to suggest exactly this. Keeps you anonymous, guy gets what he deserves. Unfortunately for you, your friend gets burned too, unless you decide to not forward that particular one/delete those emails. But then the original owner of the email may be able to trace you, so you probably shouldn't be selective about it. Oh and on the point of "my friends will get caught too" and directed at the OP: screw them. They're cheating, so what if they are your friends. The status of "your friend" means nothing to the world and holds no value whatsoever. Grow up a little and consider things outside the realm of your personal bubble. lol......friendship is in the eye of the beholder. Who cares what "the world" (lol?) thinks, if you care about someone enough and they fuck up, it is conceivable that you would want to help them. There are a number of people in my life who, given past experiences, I would lie for in an instant. That you've never had friends like that doesn't mean that no one else does, nor does it mean that their different treatment of friendship is in any way wrong.
Yeah I agree, I just think it's healthy to hear an entirely different view about the subject. The OP gave me a feeling that he had put little effort into considering the situation from an outside perspective.
|
On April 16 2013 04:09 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 04:01 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 15 2013 19:46 FakeDouble wrote:On April 15 2013 06:19 CecilSunkure wrote:
Since you went into his email once, do it again. This time forward the emails you found to your professors and superiors. Quick and dirty, job finished. Oh, good, I was just about to suggest exactly this. Keeps you anonymous, guy gets what he deserves. Unfortunately for you, your friend gets burned too, unless you decide to not forward that particular one/delete those emails. But then the original owner of the email may be able to trace you, so you probably shouldn't be selective about it. Oh and on the point of "my friends will get caught too" and directed at the OP: screw them. They're cheating, so what if they are your friends. The status of "your friend" means nothing to the world and holds no value whatsoever. Grow up a little and consider things outside the realm of your personal bubble. lol......friendship is in the eye of the beholder. Who cares what "the world" (lol?) thinks, if you care about someone enough and they fuck up, it is conceivable that you would want to help them. There are a number of people in my life who, given past experiences, I would lie for in an instant. That you've never had friends like that doesn't mean that no one else does, nor does it mean that their different treatment of friendship is in any way wrong. Yeah I agree, I just think it's healthy to hear an entirely different view about the subject. The OP gave me a feeling that he had put little effort into considering the situation from an outside perspective.
Ahh yes, well in reference to the OP what you are saying makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
|
Yeah a big issue is that he said "I might be ruining peoples' lives" by turning in their crimes. You can view their choice to cheat as a willingness to take a risk in being caught. If the cheaters really didn't want "their lives ruined" then they wouldn't have cheated in the first place.
And we can all agree that the cheaters could have easily not-cheated and passed. It's not like laziness isn't the only reason people cheated.
The whole "I might ruin lives" thing sounds like a very narrow and immature perspective that gleams with arrogance. What did he expect? He was looking for dirt. He was searching to "ruin a life".
|
Also unless he forwards that email using that person's account, it doesn't constitute felonious fraud or identity theft AFAIK and would merely be a misdemeanor-- unauthorized access to a computer (despite the access just being to an email account; this is just based on the circumstances around the Palin hacker). Not all felonies are the same though, same with misdemeanors. Legal severity in and of itself is distinct from moral rectitude. Doesn't make it any less sleazy or deplorable, however. Ultimately it's up to the op.
|
You really have you consider this both from a personal perspective and a non-personal one.
From the personal perspective, you do have your friend on the line in this situation. You say that you know him, but I'm not sure how close you guys are. For me, I will give my friends a certain degree of freedom if they commit crimes. If I found out that my friend is committing some crimes, my actions would depend on how severe it is. If it's something small, I wouldn't care, heck I do stuff like downloading music and jaywalking. If it's something bigger, like stealing a TV, I would definitely talk to them about it, but wouldn't turn them in. They would have to do something like rape in order for me to turn them in. I'm sure this applies to a lot of people. So depending on if that person is an important person to you, you have to make a hard choice on this one.
From a non-personal perspective, there are people committing crimes that could cause a great deal of harm. You are not ruining anyone's life by doing this, because when people are cheating, they become under-qualified for their profession, which in turn brings more harm, and to innocent people instead. Don't judge this situation by how much you hate the person doing this. Also don't put into consideration that he's cheating on his girlfriend. That's his personal life, it's not illegal, so it's completely irrelevant.
So what I would recommend to you is to access his email again, and then forward all the emails to the dean or whoever. Everyone who cheated will get exactly what they should get. The person will get fired, maybe worse. Everyone who cheated will fail the course, and depending on what the dean decides, they may be given another chance, or they may get expelled, in which case they will be seeking alternative career options that are within their level of expertise, so they don't have to cheat.
One thing that you should also learn from this experience is that you shouldn't be accessing someone's private email. If you are able to hate someone so much that you are doing illegal thing to harm them, then you have serious problems. Don't do it ever again.
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On April 16 2013 04:17 Aerisky wrote:
Also unless he forwards that email using that person's account, it doesn't constitute felonious fraud or identity theft AFAIK and would merely be a misdemeanor-- unauthorized access to a computer (despite the access just being to an email account; this is just based on the circumstances around the Palin hacker). Not all felonies are the same though, same with misdemeanors. Legal severity in and of itself is distinct from moral rectitude. Doesn't make it any less sleazy or deplorable, however. Ultimately it's up to the op.
Felony or not, people inciting other people to commit these acts and, furthermore, whiteknighting the person for doing so isn't what I expect from people on Team Liquid.
|
On April 16 2013 04:57 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 04:17 Aerisky wrote:
Also unless he forwards that email using that person's account, it doesn't constitute felonious fraud or identity theft AFAIK and would merely be a misdemeanor-- unauthorized access to a computer (despite the access just being to an email account; this is just based on the circumstances around the Palin hacker). Not all felonies are the same though, same with misdemeanors. Legal severity in and of itself is distinct from moral rectitude. Doesn't make it any less sleazy or deplorable, however. Ultimately it's up to the op. Felony or not, people inciting other people to commit these acts and, furthermore, whiteknighting the person for doing so isn't what I expect from people on Team Liquid.
I don't recall anyone whiteknighting anyone else. However I do think that a pragmatic approach to making the best of a poor situation is a course of action to consider.
|
On April 16 2013 04:57 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 04:17 Aerisky wrote:
Also unless he forwards that email using that person's account, it doesn't constitute felonious fraud or identity theft AFAIK and would merely be a misdemeanor-- unauthorized access to a computer (despite the access just being to an email account; this is just based on the circumstances around the Palin hacker). Not all felonies are the same though, same with misdemeanors. Legal severity in and of itself is distinct from moral rectitude. Doesn't make it any less sleazy or deplorable, however. Ultimately it's up to the op. Felony or not, people inciting other people to commit these acts and, furthermore, whiteknighting the person for doing so isn't what I expect from people on Team Liquid.
Of all the people to poorly use a shitty internet meme like "whiteknighting", I would have hoped it would not be a TL writer........
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free.
|
On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free.
I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising.
It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong.
"No Party should get off scot-free"
Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to?
|
To the OP: if you want to be a worse douchebag then the guy you hate then yes forward his emails to the Dean. But don't try and frame it as if it's somehow your "moral duty" to report this guy. You clearly don't care about what's morally right or wrong or you would have never found yourself in this situation in the first place. Clearly what you did was morally reprehensible and no, the fact that this guy cheats on his girlfriend makes no difference whatsoever. No matter what your moral belief system is 2 wrongs never make a right no matter how much you want it to. My suggestion is just leave it alone and know that you were the bigger man.
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to?
This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish.
|
On April 16 2013 05:49 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish.
Well, so long as you're cognizant of the fact that you've just whiteknighted "the law", I think we're done here.
I mean, come on, do you really think any of us need to tell this dude "hey, you're breaking the law."?
|
On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to?
If morality is individual, what right does one have to turn in the cheater? His morality is different than yours, after all. But if you turn him in on the grounds that what he did was morally wrong, then you are applying universal morality. Hence, unless you can say that hacking someone's personal email is not wrong then you should turn yourself in as well.
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On April 16 2013 05:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:49 itsjustatank wrote:On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish. Well, so long as you're cognizant of the fact that you've just whiteknighted "the law", I think we're done here. I mean, come on, do you really think any of us need to tell this dude "hey, you're breaking the law."?
Yes, especially when intrinsic to your advocacy is the encouragement to re-do the crime (and, indeed, to commit blackmail).
|
On April 16 2013 05:58 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? If morality is individual, what right does one have to turn in the cheater? His morality is different than yours, after all. But if you turn him in on the grounds that what he did was morally wrong, then you are applying universal morality. Hence, unless you can say that hacking someone's personal email is not wrong then you should turn yourself in as well.
Morality is neither individual nor universal, it is somewhere in between of course. Furthermore, it is never internally consistent across group and individual dynamics; the wrongness of an act and the prerogative to act on witnessing a wrong act are two different things.
On April 16 2013 06:01 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:52 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:49 itsjustatank wrote:On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish. Well, so long as you're cognizant of the fact that you've just whiteknighted "the law", I think we're done here. I mean, come on, do you really think any of us need to tell this dude "hey, you're breaking the law."? Yes, especially when intrinsic to your advocacy is the encouragement to re-do the crime (and, indeed, to commit blackmail).
Well, I'm sure the OP is glad for the reminder.
|
On April 16 2013 05:49 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish.
It's only punishable if he's caught. The one that's caught in the OP's scenario is the guy selling answers. The OP can prevent himself from being caught. Perhaps the OP shouldn't be punished; maybe he'll uncover similar acts of treachery in the future. I don't see the the proper authorities taking care of the situation. Perhaps the OP felt forced into the action he chose due to a lack of justice.
There's a lot of things to think about, and I don't feel like rashly "abiding by the law" or imposing some universal moral code is the best way to handle every situation that can arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
