Comment by chrisseaton
4 years ago
> a prank
Why do we tolerate pranks? You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'. Leave other people's things alone. Don't create work for other people. Don't bother people just trying to do their jobs. Don't impose your sense of humour on others. These all seem like basics to me?
If you think someone's funny? Great. Just don't bother other people with it. Do it with your own stuff, not other people's.
> Why do we tolerate pranks?
Pranks can be an outlet for creativity and learning that might not otherwise happen.
The post concludes with:
> This has been one of the most remarkable experiences I ever had in high school and I thank everyone who helped support me. That's all and thanks for reading!
I'm certain this kid learned so much working through the execution of this prank, and without being criminalized by the district, he's better off for it. Likewise, the IT department is better off with a more secure system, and staff and students experienced shared moments of unexpected joy.
Call me naive, but I'd say this kid made his small slice of the world a bit better, if only for a fleeting moment.
> Pranks can be an outlet for creativity and learning that might not otherwise happen.
Great.
But do it with your own things then. Don't bother anyone else or touch anyone else's things.
And no worker should ever have to do any work (such as reset a computer system) because of your prank. Workers have enough work to do and enough hassles in their lives.
> But do it with your own things then. Don't bother anyone else or touch anyone else's things.
You're really oversimplifying here. Something tells me this highschooler doesn't personally own the breadth of commercial equipment that he hacked for this prank.
> And no worker should ever have to do any work (such as reset a computer system) because of your prank. Workers have enough work to do and enough hassles in their lives.
Okay, let's all be worker robots :)
6 replies →
> Why do we tolerate pranks?
As the author points out early on in this article, most school districts would not have tolerated a prank like this. In fact this is the only example I know about a prank this big that got the response of toleration the author documented in the article.
> You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'.
The students made a report of what they did and presented it to the administration.
I guess to be generous I could reinterpret your concern to be, "Do students in every school district in the U.S. get to avoid criminal prosecution under the draconian CFAA by constructing a complex hack tailored to avoid interrupting regular school business, then writing up a report and giving a powerpoint presentation to an apparently enlightened and tech-savvy administration to help them strengthen their network defenses?" In that case, point taken.
> The students made a report of what they did and presented it to the administration.
So what?
Can I push you down in the street and then hand you a report explaining how I was able to push you down and that makes it all ok?
Of course that's not okay. But if you're wearing a device marketed to you as a 'force field' because you're afraid of being pushed down the street and someone demonstrates that your force field isn't working by dancing really close to you, that's probably okay.
By saying that you're imposing your sense of humor on others too (as in, the prankster's sense of humor is "pranks are funny"; your sense of humor is "pranks are not funny"; according to your comment your stance is that pranks shouldn't be tolerated). You don't have to laugh, and you're free to say you don't like pranks. But tolerating other people's opinions/sense of humor/whathaveyou seems like basics to me.
(Maybe we just have different experiences and thus different definitions of the word.)
It’s like smoking. I should tolerate someone smoking in their own home. Should I have to tolerate someone smoking on public transport next to me? Absolutely not. Even if it’s their opinion that smoke is nice.
Many criminal cases require establishing intent. Pranks may be harmful as you allude to, but the intent still matters.
How does that work? Can you murder someone for a prank and say your intent was just a prank so it was fine?
Intent separates murder from manslaughter in most states in thr USA, so yeah, a death from a prank is tangible different.
2 replies →