Are online Pranks real?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 14th, 2019, 2:10 pm

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oh ... e-n1054331
Are online pranks real pranks? Well someone is going to jail (real) for an online prank.

The prankster's victim isn't clear to me. Is it the police or the guy the police killed?

In my opinion, there is no responsibility involved with online play. If and when the police or anyone wants to use electronic devices, they do so at their own risks and perils.

It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?

In my experience,the pursuit of the truth is futile when societal prejudices dominate the sceen. This is one of those extraordinary moment when societal ridiculous approach to technology produce extraordinarily unfair results.

It is as if you convicted a bystander for a robbery he didn't really commit because he would have committed the robbery had he had the opportunity to really do so. This heartless justice; it is like the justice dished out by a volcano, mindlessly.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3090
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Felix » September 14th, 2019, 3:18 pm

It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?
Virtual is not equivalent to unreal. Hopefully you understand that cyber-crimes are committed by real people in the real world, not by extraterrestrials in some alternate reality. And there is nothing new about "virtual" crime data, surveillance cameras have been used to collect it for several decades now.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 14th, 2019, 7:35 pm

Felix wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 3:18 pm
It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?
Virtual is not equivalent to unreal.
Virtual is not unreal? Now that's a concept you won't get me to understand.

But I understand this fake idea is what the massive fake beliefs of our times hindges upon. It is like "Truth is not truth" when you agree with that, you are open to believing anything without a critical mind and so you will believe the dellusions of our time without question and promptly defend the indefensible concepts because that's the way it's been for years now.

Repetition creates familiarity and therefore familiar things appear like safe ideas.

The point is this is a case where the crime was committed in someone's mind and it was not a real world crime. Say you do phone fraud, there is a real thing or asset that ends up in the fraudsters possession and that is the real world happening that justifies fraud charges for instance. In this case, the criminal obtains nothing. It is only the unreasonable expectations of emergency services that have not been met. That is what is criminal here, if you ask me. But to understand this, you got to know what unreal means and your concept of that could certainly use some enlightenment, in my opinion.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3090
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Felix » September 15th, 2019, 4:20 am

The point is this is a case where the crime was committed in someone's mind and it was not a real world crime.
Did you even read the news story you linked to? It doesn't sound like it.

The case you mentioned was a real world crime, i.e., filing a false police report. This may be classified as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the degree of malicious intent. Falsely reporting that someone is an armed kidnapper, as this person did, is obviously quite malicious and would usually result in a much more severe penalty than the one he received.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 15th, 2019, 12:46 pm

No, it is not a real world crime. He never did file a police report in the real world.

He only interacted with a phone and a phone is a passive object. That is the real world part of what he was accused of.

Reporting serious real world occurrences need to be done face to face. Sure, police can and should investigate cyber reports made to them but should be under no obligation to give these report credibility. You need to give credibility to real world based reports only in my opinion for a number of reasons.

If you don't give credibility to some news reports over the TV and radio, neither should you give credibility to phone news, generally. As news outlet are allowed to both lie and report lies, and interview lying witnesses, you know that the cyber world needs to be heard with a grain of salt.

This act was meant as a prank. The joker made his point and that is that the police will kill (murder?) people for you just by having a phone voice talk to them into doing it. It is actually malicious of cops to really get back at a prankster with jail time simply because they have been ridiculed. That is real world maliciousness if you ask me and I am much more concerned with that then with cyber virtual maliciousness. If a prank gets someone killed, it may not be because of the leading cyber actor in it. I think this guy deseerves to be made chief of police as much as he deserves his jail sentence.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1329
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Sculptor1 » September 15th, 2019, 12:56 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 2:10 pm
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oh ... e-n1054331
Are online pranks real pranks? Well someone is going to jail (real) for an online prank.

The prankster's victim isn't clear to me. Is it the police or the guy the police killed?

In my opinion, there is no responsibility involved with online play. If and when the police or anyone wants to use electronic devices, they do so at their own risks and perils.

It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?

In my experience,the pursuit of the truth is futile when societal prejudices dominate the sceen. This is one of those extraordinary moment when societal ridiculous approach to technology produce extraordinarily unfair results.

It is as if you convicted a bystander for a robbery he didn't really commit because he would have committed the robbery had he had the opportunity to really do so. This heartless justice; it is like the justice dished out by a volcano, mindlessly.
What can we learn from this?
1) Police love to shoot people who open their doors.
2) The law enforcement services are not to be trusted in Kansas.
(a) Don't cut a deal and plead guilty.
(b) do not attempt to be curious about police activity.
3) Don't be a moron. Swatting is an abuse of freedom.
4) Grow the **** up
5) If you can't - then don't live in Kansas.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3090
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Felix » September 15th, 2019, 4:28 pm

Empiricist-Bruno: He never did file a police report in the real world. He only interacted with a phone and a phone is a passive object.
Apparently it is your brain that is the passive object.... Following your illogic, we should eliminate 911 emergency phone services and insist that telephones are not used to report crimes or emergencies, people must instead find and go to their nearest police or fire station.
This act was meant as a prank.

If so, the prankster has as much difficulty distinguishing between real world and virtual reality actions as you apparently do.

Re: innocent people being shot and killed by police, laws are being passed to combat this problem, e.g., California State legislators just passed such a law last week. See: https://bit.ly/2kCnSyf
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 16th, 2019, 12:31 pm

Felix, it seems you can't understand my illogic because you don't seem to understand my logic to begin with.

Real world people ought not to jump into the the cyber world and convict people there: convict your own, please. If you know you aren't going to convict cyber people because you are a real world person, while still feeling the need to interact with them, then the proper way to solve this is by selecting a different approach to your use of the cyber window: it isn't the real world you are seeing there, and so you should act accordingly.

A cyber window alone should never get you to do anything that you would not normally be willing to do in the real world circumstances that you encounter. So, if there is a cyber report of an ongoing crime scene with crimes about to be committed somewhere, well, what one can rightly do is to knock on that door just as police are always willing to knock on doors at any time for any reason or no reason. But if police realize that it may be quite dangerous to knock on some door and that they perhaps need to knock on the door right away to perhaps save a life, and they "know" this from a cyber window, then you have a situation they are being asked to "know" something about the real world from a cyber window, which in not fitting at all.

That's something you can't rightly do unless you are an idiot. And being an idiot is the rule it would seem since police officers do this all the time. They constantly act like idiots and they need to stop that. It is because people act like idiots that you need pranksters to help them come to their senses. But right now, they obstinately refuse to change their ways, they just dig in their idiocy act with this sentence in my opinion. We will just need to get bigger and better pranks now unless something changes.

When you get some information from the cyber window, you always need to question it and assess it as a whole. You can't react emotionally, as if it were a real world incident happening, (you need your TV fiction desensitized approach) even if there are good chances that what you see and hear is what is actually happening in the real world. You never know 100% what really is behind the image of the cyber window unless you are willing to confuse the two, the real world and the cyber world, which is by the way what people who gas light you want you to do.

So, the police could have hurried up to the mentioned location, as they can hurry up to any location they want: that is a real world thing that they are sure typically willing to do with no issues. But once on location, they had no right to have their guns pulled out because "they knew". If police officers are too afraid to approach a house with their guns in their holsters because it may be a dangerous house, even if there is no worldly evidence of it, then they don't belong in a police force in my opinion.

You have to deal with the evidence you encounter in the real world and never instead rely blindly on your cyber window. If you do, a fool may be made out of you, as has happened here. An important question here though, is should the police have a right to carry out intrusive investigations based on cyber reports? I don't think so. If you want police to go into a house to stop a crime, I think who ever reports this "needed immediate action" must be a real world person who talks to the police in the real world, yes.

Let' me give you another example I have heard of: a FBI officer gets shot in his home by a hitman. The hitman leaves thinking the FBI is dead but the FBI officer, despite his injuries manages to crawl up to the phone and call 911. All he can muster is, "I am FBI, I have been shot." The operator says okay, I'll put you through the police, the police picks up the call but the operator continues to monitor the call, at that point, all you get are loud breathing and the same thing is said, I am FBI, I have been shot and then silence. The police says, this is a prank, let's just cut the line. But then the first operator intervenes and says, put up a trace, I vouch for that call. So, they find where that call comes from. Now, at that point, it may be a joke still. So, do the police have any right to do anything other than knock on the door when they arrive? I think they don't. Sure they can blow their alarm in front of the house as they can do that at their own discretion anytime really. But if no one comes to the door is the guy going to be left bleeding to death? Do they have to wait until they get in touch with the people owning the house before breaking in? Would permission from a neighboor be enough to bust in and save the FBI agent? Now to answer that question, you have to wonder, should police have the right to enter any house any time due to cyber information? I think no, you don't have this right but I would be willing delegate that right to my neighboors, any time for any reason. So, if the police knock on some neighboor doors and ask the neighboor if he thinks it would be ok if he broke in his neighboor's place. Now, that would be a way to go around holding the cyberworld responsible: you just ask a neighboor to take responsibility first. It is more normal as you expect a neighboor to have good intentions towards you. So, this way, the cyberworld could still be used but just a little differently, if you follow my non-idiotic way of thinking, lives could still be saved.

Felix, I hope you will understand my non-idiotic way of thinking one day because if you don't, I will need to play a prank on you eventually.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3090
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Felix » September 16th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Again, emergency hotlines are designed to be used for reporting actual emergencies, and therefore it is a crime to use them to make false reports. Emergencies by definition are life or death situations and a quick response to them is necessary, there is usually no time to have Sherlock Holmes check out the crime scene before the police or fire men arrive.

And it works both ways, there was a case in California where a psychotic armed gumen reported a nonexistent fire, and was waiting for the firemen with a high powered rifle. He shot and killed a couple of them right after their fire truck arrived at the scene and they got out of it.

I agree that emergency response personnel should not shoot and ask questions later, but this is a separate question than whether people should be indicted for making false crime reports, especially overtly malicious ones like the one you referenced. If someone reports that an armed kidnapper has taken a hostage at such and such address, one can not expect the police to show up there with candy and flowers.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 605
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by chewybrian » September 16th, 2019, 5:51 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 12:31 pm
So, they find where that call comes from. Now, at that point, it may be a joke still. So, do the police have any right to do anything other than knock on the door when they arrive? I think they don't. Sure they can blow their alarm in front of the house as they can do that at their own discretion anytime really. But if no one comes to the door is the guy going to be left bleeding to death? Do they have to wait until they get in touch with the people owning the house before breaking in? Would permission from a neighboor be enough to bust in and save the FBI agent?
My neighbor can not give permission for police to enter my house without a warrant. I don't know why you think that "permission" would be stronger than a report that someone is injured or in danger, or that a serious crime is taking place.

The police may go just about anywhere if they have a reasonable suspicion that a felony is being committed, that someone is badly hurt or in great danger. If they get a report of a kidnapping or a heart attack victim inside my house, that can be enough for them to break down the door. The judge will have to decide later if they had reasonable cause to do so. Would a reasonable person have believed that there was great danger, or the chance to save a life or prevent a serious crime? If the judge says no, then nothing they find is admissible in court. If he says yes, then whatever they found in the course of trying to help the alleged victim or prevent the crime they thought was in progress can be used against me, even if there was no crime taking place.

I called the cops a couple years ago when I heard strange noises in my neighbor's courtyard. It was about 2 am, and I used to get up that early to train for cycling events. There was a rather loud noise that sounded like someone cutting aluminum. I could tell she was not home, so I told them what I heard, and that I was not certain if anything illegal was going on or not. They came in large numbers and crept up to the courtyard with guns out, but found nothing. I was surprised at their response, but I don't think it was necessarily wrong. The noise I heard was consistent with someone trying to break in. But, they certainly did not act on my "permission". They came out in force because the facts I presented gave them the impression that a serious crime was taking place, and they were ready to protect themselves and make an arrest if necessary. They were allowed to enter the courtyard because of my report and their judgment of its validity, not by my permission, which I had no standing to give.

I made the report by phone, but there would be no material difference if I made it on the internet or by flagging down a highway patrolman. I don't see why you think there is such a big distinction. No matter how the alleged facts are presented to them, they need to make a quick judgment and act if they are going to be effective. If it turns out later they used poor judgment, it can be sorted out in court if necessary.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 17th, 2019, 12:29 pm

Felix wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 3:28 pm
Again, emergency hotlines are designed to be used for reporting actual emergencies, and therefore it is a crime to use them to make false reports. Emergencies by definition are life or death situations and a quick response to them is necessary, there is usually no time to have Sherlock Holmes check out the crime scene before the police or fire men arrive.

And it works both ways, there was a case in California where a psychotic armed gumen reported a nonexistent fire, and was waiting for the firemen with a high powered rifle. He shot and killed a couple of them right after their fire truck arrived at the scene and they got out of it.

I agree that emergency response personnel should not shoot and ask questions later, but this is a separate question than whether people should be indicted for making false crime reports, especially overtly malicious ones like the one you referenced. If someone reports that an armed kidnapper has taken a hostage at such and such address, one can not expect the police to show up there with candy and flowers.
Again, Felix, you are using euphemism that show once again that you have no real understanding of the virtual world. It is an imaginary world. When you talk about emergency hotlines, you aren't talking about a wire; you are talking about a number, 911. There are no worldly hotlines but let's not get into a pointless battle of meaning of words for now.

Reports are a worldly thing, and when you talk about cyber reports, you have to acknowledge their difference, if you are a real person. If you give 100% credibility to cyber reports, it implies that you must be a cyber person which you are not.

You see, there is a cyber world and we have a representation (or many representations) in it but it is one big leap to say that this representation is "us" meaning the real world individuals that we are. So, if you start confusing the real world with the cyber world, you may as well allow the police to shoot everyone as soon as they arrive on a potentially dangerous crime scene: if anyone gets hurt, just press the back button... So, no, the real world and cyber world don't work the same way.

Now, even what you are saying, using the cyber windows to make a false report is a real physical impossibility. It is not something that a worldly person can do and if you don't realize this, there are many possible explanations and I don't know which one it is going to be but maybe if I make my case again, you will get it this time: To make a report, you need to use your own energy to make it. If another use his/her/its energy to make it, it isn't your report. So, how does "your" report reaches the police files? With the energy coming from a power station generator and you shouldn't be held responsible for what it does, ok?

Ok, you are at home and you use the energy of your own fingers to dial 911. But reaching the 911 the 911 operator isn't something that you do (here again the word reaching isn't right either as it looks like a human reach but in fact, only a connection opens up); it is something that the cyber world does and it doesn't do that with your energy, it does that with generator's energy. So, first, you are not really responsible for the connection.

Second, as you talk on the phone, for sure your energy is involved but none of that energy which came from your heart, reaches any real person if you are by yourself in your room. So, no, you simply can't make a report the way you describe and as you suggest. All you can do is allow the machine to forward cyber world propaganda based on what it "sees" at your end of its part to another part of the cyber world. You aren't making any report.

But don't let the truth get into your head, go ahead and call it 'the report that you make' (now these are false accusations but since the whole world is ok with your assessment there, you aren't risking jail here even though you generally see something wrong with making false statements) and delude your self into thinking that it is the real world "you" who is talking to police when you talk on the phone.

Now you are coming up with the broad statement that "emergency lines are designed to be used for..." which shows that you must not understand the science behind these technological devices or that you agree to live with deep contradictions within yourself for reasons that I don't quite follow. You and others have much explaining to do here.

When you say, "emergency lines are designed to be used for..." you don't seem to realize that no one has put up any real world emergency lines anywhere in the first place but don't let that stop you from starting a fabulous story to go along with your imaginary fact : declare the purpose of of your non-existent lines, "...are designed to be used for...." That's like a big religion or science fiction that you are into. And this isn't harmless and it will continue to cause harm so long as you and others continue to support this kind of dysfunctional appreciation of technology, just don't blame the prankster, please! He's done nothing here except imagining things in a misleading context.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 130
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Thomyum2 » September 18th, 2019, 2:36 am

I see two concurrent lines of thought here. The first can maybe be clarified by noting the distinction between a behavior that is a crime, i.e. is against the law, and a behavior that causes harm. While there is some overlap, since the law does target behaviors that cause harm, this isn't exclusively the case. Certainly there are behaviors that are illegal even without anyone being harmed, because they are perceived as a risk (e.g. driving drunk is a crime even if no accident was caused), or because they frighten people (e.g. threatening to kill someone), or because they are morally offensive (e.g. public nudity). Since any behavior could potentially be the target of a law prohibiting it, there's really no reason to think that the fact that a behavior involved a 'virtual' medium, or employed a particular technology, would for that reason alone necessarily be exempt and outside the scope of legal regulation and more than a behavior in any other public forum or space would be.

The second line of thought is the question of whether or not the truth or accuracy of information promulgated in the virtual world should be the responsibility of the individual who put it there or the responsibility of those who used that information to act. That's a more complex and interesting question, I think, and as the virtual world is relatively new on the scene, I believe the world is still very much wrestling with this. But I think it's really an old question at the heart - that of balancing freedom with responsibility. When any freedoms aren't used in a responsible way and with care and concern for the potential harm that those acts may result in, sooner or later those freedoms may be lost as they become targets of new laws.

The virtual world is just another public space. Some people use it to try to communicate reliable information, others to play pranks. The players on both sides need to consider the impact their virtual activities have on each other, or risk losing it altogether.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 20th, 2019, 2:05 pm

chewybrian wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 5:51 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 12:31 pm
So, they find where that call comes from. Now, at that point, it may be a joke still. So, do the police have any right to do anything other than knock on the door when they arrive? I think they don't. Sure they can blow their alarm in front of the house as they can do that at their own discretion anytime really. But if no one comes to the door is the guy going to be left bleeding to death? Do they have to wait until they get in touch with the people owning the house before breaking in? Would permission from a neighboor be enough to bust in and save the FBI agent?
My neighbor can not give permission for police to enter my house without a warrant. I don't know why you think that "permission" would be stronger than a report that someone is injured or in danger, or that a serious crime is taking place.

The police may go just about anywhere if they have a reasonable suspicion that a felony is being committed, that someone is badly hurt or in great danger. If they get a report of a kidnapping or a heart attack victim inside my house, that can be enough for them to break down the door. The judge will have to decide later if they had reasonable cause to do so. Would a reasonable person have believed that there was great danger, or the chance to save a life or prevent a serious crime? If the judge says no, then nothing they find is admissible in court. If he says yes, then whatever they found in the course of trying to help the alleged victim or prevent the crime they thought was in progress can be used against me, even if there was no crime taking place.<br/>
<br/>
I called the cops a couple years ago when I heard strange noises in my neighbor's courtyard. It was about 2 am, and I used to get up that early to train for cycling events. There was a rather loud noise that sounded like someone cutting aluminum. I could tell she was not home, so I told them what I heard, and that I was not certain if anything illegal was going on or not. They came in large numbers and crept up to the courtyard with guns out, but found nothing. I was surprised at their response, but I don't think it was necessarily wrong. The noise I heard was consistent with someone trying to break in. But, they certainly did not act on my "permission". They came out in force because the facts I presented gave them the impression that a serious crime was taking place, and they were ready to protect themselves and make an arrest if necessary. They were allowed to enter the courtyard because of my report and their judgment of its validity, not by my permission, which I had no standing to give.<br/>
<br/>
I made the report by phone, but there would be no material difference if I made it on the internet or by flagging down a highway patrolman. I don't see why you think there is such a big distinction. No matter how the alleged facts are presented to them, they need to make a quick judgment and act if they are going to be effective. If it turns out later they used poor judgment, it can be sorted out in court if necessary.
<e>
I agree that your neighbour cannot give permission for police to enter your house. And even if they had a warrant, I think you still could not enter the house -unless you are the police. What I am talking about is illegal entry by your neighbour into your house with police blessings. It is a new concept. I do agree that the police should not have the right to enter anyone's house without a warrant. But if the cyber window propaganda suggests that you are in the process of bleeding to death in your house, why not give authority to your neighbour to check your house? Like, if your neighbor is being informed of the cyber call the police received, then maybe your neighbour is worried about you too. Now, what if police just "helps your neighbor break into your house, but don't step in themselves: they just allow your neighboor to go around and make sure everything is all right. If your neighbour finds you unconscious on the floor, then you head back out to the emergency personel and you call them in. This time, they come in knowing it is real and not a joke what is going on because your neighbour is real. The point of this run around approach is to still help while protecting people against pranks, which are a real threat. It is more normal for your neighboor to enter your house because you may very well be friends and this action to enter his or her house may be something you would be willing to do just about any time anyway without causing concerns and so doing it upon the prompt of propaganda from the cyberwindow would not be justified by the propaganda but justified because you are a neighboor. Emergency personnel have no justification to enter your house simply by virtue of being emergency personnel. So if they feel they must check up upon you because of that cyber window, then they should let a neighbour lead the way.

No, it wouldn't be stronger, it would simply be a worldly permisssion as opposed to a cyberworld permission

What I am doing here is to question how the police can get their suspicion.
I am suggesting that they should not treat as their knowledge the propaganda they read from the cyber window. I don't think they should ignore that source of clues either. But I disagree that this source of clue should give them the authority to draw their weapons and aim them at buildings or step into areas that they are normally not permitted to step on if there is no other compelling worldly evidence to make them think they have to take unusual actions.

Here I think there is some issues with the meaning of "your permission". Without your call, they certainly wouldn't have had the right to approach just any house the way they did. So, yes, they did this with your permission and no, they didn't do this with your permission because you used the phone and so they acted upon cyber propaganda.

Yes, there is a difference here: when you talk to someone, and give a worldly report they are acting upon worldly evidence and not upon anything imaginary.

You introduce another issue, which I think is a side issue: you seem to suggest that it isn't you who is sending them there. You seem to believe that they are acting upon what they felt the actual situation required them to do based on their own judgment and training. I think you are wrong. Police do have a duty to the citizens. They are civil servants. If you feel something suspicious is happening at your neighboor's house and are worldly witness to these occurences and you flag the highway patrol person about it, it is because you want your suspicions investigated. What you are giving them is much more than a permission, you are giving them a duty to investigate. It is their duty to investigate potential criminal activity. If they don't do it, they could be accused of neglect of duty. They do this investigation for you. You can't just distance yourself from what they do once you have called them. This is why you need to think carefully before calling them for help: lots of people end up surprised that their innocent call to the police ends up killing people even if their call was made "legitimately."

And yes, you do give them permission. The only way not to give them permission is not to talk to them. I once was witnessed to a crime and was asked to give a quick description of the suspect -my big mistake- and then they rush every where looking for someone that may match that description. In that instance, I give them permission to arrest people based on their looks, something I didn't want them to have. I generally don't want to feel complicity with police procedure as my experience with it is that it is barbaric and so, giving a description to police will always be out of the question. And yes, if they stop someone because of my description, they would be doing that with my permission as police are my servants as public servants. If I don't want their services, I know I need to keep my mouth shut, just like if you don't want the service of an automatic door, you don't walk in front of the door scan: it is giving it permission if you know it is there.

As I try to answer your post, I realize another important side issue here with your call: You seem to have called the police because you were hearing things which you felt would be of interest to the police to hear. It was as if you thought: "If I were a police officer, this noise would catch my interest and perhaps, I would want to investigate this." So, you gave them a call because you think the police is with you when it isn't really. You aren't the eyes and ears of the police but you just acted that way and so you were wrong to begin with. You called them with a falsehood in mind.

Maybe you haven't yet learned to distance yourself from them and appreciate your own separate identity. You haven't mentioned feeling any fear about hearing this noise. Did you feel in danger? Why didn't you just go and step outside and check out for yourself where this noise came from?

I once had a guy like yourself make a stupid report like that and as a result, my house was police-stormed for no reason and I was taken into custody and searched. Cops really like that they can terrorize a bunch of people in the process of making sure everything is ok. And some "non-prank" caller think it isn't his/her fault... Jesus. At least, there weren't anyone in your neighboor's place... Someone can thank you for that.

Once, there was a murder with knives some place and the woman being murdered was screaming like mad and neighboors got out of their appartments so terrifying the screams were. They all look at one another gravely and then they all went back to their places thinking that surely, someone else had called the police, which no one did. Three days later, her body was found. So, the way things work right now does not necessarily work very well. If neighboors knew to rely upon worldly evidence, things like that would not happen either.

Facts cannot be seen through a cyber windown. Facts are things of the the world, not of the virtual world. We don't need a virtual police force that strikes at people with real bullets.
Poor judgment is the result of accepting as real what is imaginary: it is like accepting that Supreme Judge Kavanaugh was a very fine student and never acted in any inappropriate way with any woman.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 605
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by chewybrian » September 21st, 2019, 5:20 am

Is the internet 'real"?

Yes. There is no material difference between this and other means of communicating. People rob banks by passing notes to the teller. The results are just as real. A kidnapper could communicate by letter, or by email, and the consequences would be the same. There is mail fraud, wire fraud, and fraud committed on the internet, and they all amount to real world fraud.

The police have a duty to look at evidence coming by all means, and in today's world, some crimes will only leave a footprint on the internet. But they are still real crimes. Reports of crimes sent by computer are no less real, either.

Are the police evil?

No. They are people, some good, some bad. As long as the laws they enforce are just, then there is no reason to fear or resent the police. Thankfully, we have rights which prevent them from searching us or our homes without cause, and I don't think we should voluntarily concede those rights. But, there is no reason to be against police in general. They perform a difficult and necessary job.

Should my neighbor take the place of the police?

Of course not. Can you even imagine the liability of asking the neighbor to go into my home to investigate a report of a prowler? Why did I not go into my neighbor's courtyard to investigate what I heard? Because I was not armed, and I did not want to bear the liability of taking the law into my own hands. I might have faced a trespassing charge, or been injured or killed if there was a burglar. I had nothing to lose by calling the police, and it seemed like the right thing in that circumstance. I would have wanted my neighbor to call the police if the roles were reversed, but I also would not want them to go into my courtyard on their own.

You seem to be a bit off the rails on all counts.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4068
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » September 22nd, 2019, 2:18 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 2:10 pm
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oh ... e-n1054331
Are online pranks real pranks? Well someone is going to jail (real) for an online prank.

The prankster's victim isn't clear to me. Is it the police or the guy the police killed?

In my opinion, there is no responsibility involved with online play. If and when the police or anyone wants to use electronic devices, they do so at their own risks and perils.

It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?

In my experience,the pursuit of the truth is futile when societal prejudices dominate the sceen. This is one of those extraordinary moment when societal ridiculous approach to technology produce extraordinarily unfair results.

It is as if you convicted a bystander for a robbery he didn't really commit because he would have committed the robbery had he had the opportunity to really do so. This heartless justice; it is like the justice dished out by a volcano, mindlessly.
I find it fascinating that nowhere in your analysis did you mention that a dude was killed. Someone died. How can you use the smokescreen of "prank" like ringing a doorbell and running away.

The victim is unclear to you? Uummm... how about the dead guy?

So if the dead person was your kid, you'd write this identical post? I'd be saying (as I am actually saying right now) that 20 years is too lenient.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply