5 Wacky Internet Pranks That Can Get You Jail Time
Several years ago, I convinced a lot of people on our message board to prank call a local radio DJ after he was mean to a friend of mine. You can imagine my surprise when I was arrested within a couple of hours, charged with, I guess, instigating phone shenanigans. (To this day I'm not completely sure they didn't just make up a law to charge me with.)
The point being, there's a whole lot of silly shit that people like me do online because there's this unspoken rule that what happens on the Internet stays on the Internet. That illusion is often shattered only by the sound of a cop kicking down your door.
Among the things that can get you into surprising amounts of legal trouble are ...
#5.
Embarrassing Your Friends With Wacky Pranks
Ever photoshopped the head of your friend onto, say, some midget porn? Or set up a fake Facebook page to mock somebody at school? Or maybe just posted a video of a guy doing something embarrassing, like puking at your Halloween party?
Harvard'll love that.
You know, like these kids in Massachusetts, all 13 or 14 years old, who got together and created a Facebook profile for another student at their school. They then did what you and I would do after setting up a fake Facebook page, which is make it look like that person is spewing ridiculous insults toward everyone at the school (though we also might have opted for the old standby, the "I can prove Hitler was right" status update). All of the kids involved wound up charged with identity theft. The victim of the prank got harassed at school over it, then somebody complained to the police, and the Internet service provider was more than happy to help them track down the kids and that was that. (Hint: You're basically never anonymous online.)
No matter what mask you wear.
In Georgia, another kid got arrested and charged with criminal defamation for pulling the same prank. He got the stiffer charges because instead of posting wacky insults, he basically made it look like the victim was confessing to a crime. Turns out that's a big deal.
And of course in both cases there were young victims there, so you can see the cops stepping in to protect a kid. But then you have this Canadian student who set up a fake Facebook page assuming the role of one of his teachers. You know, the kind of smirking prank Ferris "hacked into the school computer to change his records" Bueller would have pulled off if Facebook had existed in 1986. Only this student got charged with personation, defined under Canadian law as impersonation with criminal intent (similar to identity theft in the U.S.).
The punishment, as with all infractions of Canadian law, is impalement by Mounties.
But of course all of this is skipping over the most famous example. Remember the " Star Wars Kid" meme? When teenager Ghyslain Raza filmed himself with a golf ball retriever pole, swinging it around like Darth Maul? He didn't upload it himself -- he just left the tape in the basement, where it was found by some kids who uploaded to every video hosting site they could find. It became the most widespread viral video in Internet history. The part of that story you might not know is that the kids who uploaded it wound up probably paying enough money to buy Star Wars Kid a house.
It turns out Raza had to drop out of school because of the constant harassment and undergo psychiatric treatment.
"I'll jam this right into your goddamn eye. Don't fuck with me."
His parents filed a $250,000 lawsuit against the families of the four boys who uploaded the video. It was settled out of court, and we'll never know how much they had to pay. But we know it was enough to make it worth it to the family to not go for the quarter-million. And we're going to take a wild guess and say it's way, way more than a bunch of teenagers thought they'd have to pay for making the school nerd look stupid.
#4.
Nude Photo Shenanigans
If you can't use Photoshop to crop your friend's head onto a naked person's body, then we're not sure what Photoshop is for. Hell, somebody sticking the head of the boss onto a porn star's body was the basis of a whole episode of The Office (the British version).
The American version actually has someone who looks like a porn star.
For all we know, that episode may have been what inspired a guy named Osa Bezue to take the driver's license photos of at least two female coworkers and photoshop their heads onto naked Internet women. He uploaded them to the internet and bam -- jail. Yeah, it turns out that's considered cyber stalking. Oh, and by the way, he was also a cop, so he gets the added charge of "malfeasance while in office."
OK, so what about real naked photos? You know, like how the good guys in Revenge of the Nerds planted cameras in the sorority house and later sold topless pics of the hottest girl? That can't be a big deal, right? Maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd, but almost everyone I know has had a nude photo taken of them at least once in their lives. Actually, maybe that makes them the right crowd. And I'd be shocked if my dick isn't on the Internet somewhere. You know, like in the background at a party or something.
Screw FIOS. Patron is the fastest road to the Internet.
But if so, the uploader could be looking at jail time. Ask Marcus Bustos, who posted nude photos of his ex-girlfriend and wound up being brought up on the same cyber stalking charges, coupled with intimidation.
Yeah, but what if the girl posts photos of herself? Isn't that what webcams are for? You know, like this high school student, who sent out pics of herself to dudes she met in chatrooms.
Yeah, that's child porn. She was 15, and if you're thinking it was the dudes who got busted for possessing the illicit material, you're wrong -- she got charged for distributing it. Since she was underage when she took those pictures, she was charged with sexual abuse of children and dissemination of child pornography. And since her computer contained those pictures of herself ... possession of child pornography. Even though the child in question was her. Doesn't matter.
Justice is blind. And also retarded.
Google shows hundreds upon hundreds of these exact cases where teens do the sort of thing teens do, unaware that they're committing a felony in the process. The same can be said for ...
#3.
Boasting About How Much Weed You Smoke, Dude
By my count, approximately 97 percent of the world's online gaming profiles reference weed in the username or avatar. Millions upon millions of forum profiles do the same, and people talk and joke so openly about how they totally smoke weed every day that it's actually pretty easy to forget that the shit is still illegal.
Above: The video game industry's secret fuel.
For instance, we have Rajneel Kumar who, along with millions and millions of others, posted pretty consistently on his MySpace page about his smoking and growing of marijuana. The problem is that he lived about a block away from an elementary school, and some people who didn't like that idea turned him in.
When the police raided his home, they found half a pound of weed, along with the bonus of two ounces of meth and shitloads of paraphernalia.
That's actually his beard.
Well ... he did live close to a school. We suppose we can see how parents wouldn't want their kids getting a contact high from ... uh, walking past his house or whatever. But then you have this guy, who was growing a single hemp plant and documenting its stages in videos that he uploaded to YouTube. Police collected the videos, which gave them more than enough evidence to raid his home and confiscate not only the plant but all of his hydroponics equipment. Luckily, he got off with a warning, which is why his name wasn't released by the police department.
We can't say the same for Rachel Stieringer. She took a picture of her baby looking like it was smoking (an empty) bong. You know, as a joke. She posted it on Facebook, then was immediately arrested on drug charges and became the subject of a Department of Children and Families investigation, which could lead to her losing her child. Not to mention the fact that any future employer who does a quick Google search of her name gets page after page of that story.
"420, motherfuckers!"
I'm seeing a lot of complaints in the comments section about the email and wifi, the 'child porn', and the threats.
ReplyThe end result of the girl's actions was people possessing sexually explicit material featuring a minor, even if it was on her own initiative. And being a minor, she is legally considered unable to make the decision to participate in that material. Questionable on the common-sense front, but it's a valid argument in court.
The email access, aside from the impersonation and privacy angles:
Think of how much you can do with "I FORGOT MY PASSWORD" access all over the internet, including money-linked sites like Amazon!
The wifi, the neighbor has paid for. I like the 'unlocked car' comparison, especially if that 'car' is then used for something illegal. Court cases like this are probably trying to set a precedent.
For the threats, as John Cheese put it well:
"Even if you're only right one time in a thousand, it's better to let somebody know. That's a hell of a lot better than saying nothing and seeing it on the news later."
I think this every time we laugh at the police and the government apparently overreacting to a situation. Nobody wants to go down as the lazy idiot that didn't act on a public clue to the next terrorist attack, domestic or not. Think of how much flak the intelligence agencies caught after 9/11, and compare it to how many threats you see spouted off by random guys on a regular basis. The connections are 'obvious' in hindsight, but they had so, so much crap to sort through beforehand!
All of these sucked for the people charged on a personal basis, but I have to agree with the cops on most of them, at least for the legal grounds for their arrests.
(Sorry; I didn't intend this to be long.)
If a response is made to a non realistic threa that it isn't worth it. Saying "I'm gonna kill you" is not the same as a real threat.
Worried about "big brother" yet? How about insane laws and unintended consequences? How, please tell me how a teenage girl can be arrested for possessing provocative photos OF HERSELF?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesIf she is under age and makes them available it's distribution of child pornography. Fortunately for the dumb sluts you want to protect, the asleep-at-the-wheel parents get charged because she is a minor.
I think it's stupid she can get in trouble for having her own pictures. And to MJD have you ever considered that the problem is, they are punishing the parents for the childs actions. Like the parents are somehow mind controlling their children.
I get really tired hearing people b***h about "big brother" it makes you sound like such a tard.
Tor. That is all.
ReplyIf you post naked pictures of your ex on the internet without their permission, yeah I'd say that's a criminal offence and you should get jail time.
ReplySame with taking a picture of your baby, making it look like the're smoking a bong. I'd be worried if they didn't investigate that. That's conclusive proof you're too stupid to breed.
I just feel sorry for the fifteen year old girl with the pictures though. She needs a stern talking to and maybe some self-esteem classes, not to be stuck on the sexual offenders register.
Agree. The kid's an idiot, but sex offender charges? Total bull. They need new laws for idiotic teens who like to post boob shots of themselves.
I absolutely hate that register. The parents of the kidnapped child who advocated it should be absolutely ashamed of themselves of how awful it has become (not that that it wasn't a tragic event, but they would be like most parents who learn about pedos in their neighborhood, do nothing about it).
Guy on my campus has to go on the list for life because he streaked, on campus, at night, where no children could see him.
But because that's a "sex offense" he is now on the list. It's absolutely insane, and the parents who live around the (actually convicted) pedophiles do nothing about it, and then sex offenders can't even live in some cities because they have to be so many yards away from schools, churches, etc.
When I think "wacky prank," I think stuff like putting clingfilm over the toilet bowl or surprising someone with a water pistol, not f*****g identity theft.
Replythe only one i have a problem with is the 15 year old thing... yeah thats NOT underage... shes 15 for petes sake, not 14.
Reply Hide All See All 4 Replies15 is SO more grown-up than 14! It's not like their minds and ideas are going to stay the same after ONE birthday! *sigh*
Anyone under 18 is legally underage, at least in the US, I don't know other countries' laws.
It's a joke. You guys seriously don't get that? Christ.
15 is only a year of from the age of consent in Michigan which is 16. And I know that one state in America the age of consent is 14
I actually got my twitter account hacked, which I use only like every six months, and whoever hacked it wrote that at some point I had a threesome with two thirteen year olds, and at some other point I snorted a metric buttload of coke. It's crazy to me because what does a person have to gain from posting that?
ReplyThey are like trolls. Someone did a similar thing to my MySpace account (back when MySpace mattered) and posted...I can't remember what they posted, but it was things that was really bad. Luckily, none of my friends thought I had really posted those things, so I was ok.
You're lucky you weren't arrested!
These aren't wacky pranks - these are acts committed by sociopaths. They put real people in real danger, ruin real lives. Cyber-stalking is a real, terrifying thing and those who have experienced it are always up against those who go 'oh so he's created a fake facebook profile of you to get information from your friends about what you're up to and where you are? - oh what a wacky guy!' 'he got into your email account and now has your class schedule? well thats just good old fashioned fun!' thats how stalking victims end up dead - cos people think that anything thats done online is just a 'wacky prank' that has no repercussions in the real world.
ReplySo I'm being talked at over the internet by a felon. Good to know. Also it's not retarded, that kid was distributing illegal material. A slave is still a slave, even if s/he doesn't know s/he is a slave.
Replyshes not a slave if no one is making her do anything, though i'm not supporting what she did.
p360 he's not saying that she's a slave, it's called a comparison.
If you have the time definitely should give the transcripts a read, good stuff in there and Moot has to explain what a rick-roll and new fags are. Also the stenographer writes down "mean" instead of "meme"
ReplyThis is why you only post those things from a public library,and while wearing a disguise.
ReplyYou'd have to get a temporary pass at mine; your library barcode is your username.
Wait, wait "Rajneel Kumar"? KUMAR?!
ReplyBrilliant.
Wonder where the hell was Harold..
Know what beats a proxy? using one of your neighbors open wifi networks :D
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesYou want to add another crime to the list by stealing WiFi? How wise of you. That's also highly unethical, trying to mask yourself as your neighbor then committing acts you know are illegal. And to top it off, three people, so far, have upped your comment. Go society!
Freddie is right, using someone else's unsecured wifi is illegal now, for reasons exactly like this. It's like taking someone else's car because they left the door unlocked, or walking into their house and watching their TV because they left the front door unlocked. You don't do it.
That's.....not going to help you. :/ I mean, they'll still be able to identify the area where you are, and track who's using what Internet.
Long story short, if the government (or a really industrious hacker/stalker) wants to find you...they can.
Sorry, I just don't get how using someone's open wi-fi connection is theft in any way. They haven't lost anything, not even the use of their connection. This is simple manipulation by the big corporations into convincing you that any time you use anything without specifically paying for it or signing a contract is "theft". Unethical? Possibly. Theft? No. Comparing it to stealing a car is ludicrous. And unless you actually hack the computer that has the open wi-fi access you cannot compare it to going into someone's house and watching TV either. You haven't entered anything. It is an open signal. It is not private. Some people don't mind sharing thier wi-fi, they've secured their home networks. Where's the loss? There IS no loss. If they pretend to be you because they are on your connection that's another issue altogether. The point is any of these so-called crimes need to be viewed in CONTEXT. And calling this theft is ludicrous.
I paid for my WiFi. Someone piggybacks off of my (paid for) WiFi. Seems innocuous. But, for the very reasons stated above, doing stupid crap under SOMEONE ELSE's WiFi connection is serious. You can CLAIM they didn't lose anything, but you are still accessing it without their permission. Like siphoning electricity. They still get the electricity, but now you are stealing by illegal access. Go f*cking buy your own. Furthermore, I agree: comparing it to stealing a car is not the same. However, sure, the owner COULD let you use it. But what if they do not want you to? I can invite you in, but the second I don't wanna see your face you need to bounce. Same thing. If I don't want you using it, go cry in a corner; I paid for this s*it, and you should do the same. Frankly, I am kind of leery of not allowing people (if they WANT TO) to share their connection, but it makes sense with respect to the number of devices a particular wireless set up can carry. I'll be damned if my neighbor decides to steal my connection using 4 laptops, wifi ipad, etc, slowing it down. I have four computers and ipad. I'm not sharing. Go buy your own: i promise it won't be as slow as carrying 9 on one connection
Well that has to be the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Its not like youre going to be some mystery computer. ISPs collect information on what computers connect through them. so sure, if you have a completely clean (ie never been used on a single personal website) computer that you bought cash upfront that you purchased just to harass others, use your neighbors internet.
You obviously dont have an understanding of how much information is collected, and can be tracked by just a mere connection to the internet.
oh look, more 4chan hate. conveniently phrased to make it seem like 4chan isn't anonymous.
Reply Hide All See All 4 Repliesthe guy was probably found through other means than just posting on 4chan. if he was, it was probably in the 48 hour window that they hold info before dumping it.
His screenshot included the URL of the proxy he was using (or something), gave feds a neon sign of where to start digging.
He left his email address in the screenshots. The FBI didn't bother contacting the proxy, as there was no need.
actually just read through the whole transcripts and Moot offered the evidence to the feds to help them with the case. Really interesting to see him try to explain the internet to non users
because 4chan isnt anonymous...
this is why i always connect to the internet via carrier pigeon
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYou is clever.
I prefer smoke signals.
Personally, I go with Semaphore. To each his own.
I'm gonna joke right here right now this f*****g instant and I'm gonna joke funny
ReplyAnybody threatened?
What about 7 proxies?
Reply1 word, 3 syllables: Parenting
Replythe baby with the bong just isn't cool. this is def one of the most idiotic weed-related f**k ups i've seen. =/ dissapointed!
Reply Hide All See All 9 Repliesyeah, anytime something like that gets into the papers it'll just keep weed illegal for another year (and for every million decent smokers there's bound to be one fuckup who'll do something similar). they should just stick to taking photos that look like adorable animals are hitting the bong, those are 100% acceptable, right?
Yeah it's pretty atrocious.
Oh my god, i cant believe how square you guys are. Im grateful i grew up in a sane, well adjusted household with parents that made jokes and had a sense of humour. Its completely harmless to show a baby with an empty bong, and you know what? Its also none of your business to judge that. I would bet willing to betvthat a mother who can make such avjoke is far less likely to be the sort of twisted, emotionally abusive person that raised many of the people i know, and would tut tut along with you at the bong joke, before they get back to inducing eating disorders and psychologically scarring their own kids.
I also can't beleive how many misspellings and poor grammatical formulations i had in there. This is what happens when you try to navigate Cracked with an iPhone... hopefully my meaning is obvious. It was a harmless joke, the kind of joke my awesome parents might have made, & in my experience its the kind of parents who cant abide that sort of joke that are responsible for the worst situations for kids growing up.
Agreed.. as a weed smoker that's pretty stupid to take a pic of a baby hitting a bong (and doing it correctly answering the question "do you burn around your infant?"
I know, I use cracked from my iPod, and it usually takes like 10 minutes to post a comment!
Baby in the pic now knows that mommy lets him play with the big funny shaped thing.
Later, mother will be using the bong herself, put it down 'for a minute' and baby will crawl in. A dose of weed that's fine for an adult could seriously poison or kill a child that small.
And please don't argue that the mother will make sure the child will do no such thing. Anyone who has children or takes care of them regularly (like a daycare) can tell you how inventive and active they are, and how 'just a second' can lead to disasters large and small.
OdumC, there's much irony in your confessing to smoking weed in the comments section of an article on the internet which essentially says doing so can have legal ramifications. Nice.
I thought that picture was actually pretty funny. Although to be honest it may have just been the caption that made me laugh.
With the exception of the 15 year old who took photos of herself, all of the actions taken against these people seem very reasonable. If you're stupid enough to threaten the president's life on the internet then getting arrested is probably the only thing that's going to get through your thick skull.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesI agree with you, with one caveat: the punishment should fit the crime (or lack thereof). If it turns out to have been an empty troll rant or something, a slap on the knuckles is really enough there.
I also disagree with the anti-hacker laws - "gaining unauthorised access to a database" shouldn't be illegal. *Doing damage* should be illegal. The good guys lost that battle back in the late 80s/early 90s.
Getting into someones e-mail should be treated like getting into someones snailmail - a crime againt the persons privacy. The fact that he accessed a "database" is almost incidental. It's just an accident that a human beings privacy happened to be protected by a law that was designed to protect corporations and government agencies from potentially having information exposed.
Its like that with the crimes in #5 as well, when you think about it. I'm glad those stupid kids got actual legal trouble from bullying - bullying and harrassment *should* be illegal. But it's an accident that came from a set of laws (defamation, impersonation) that were really just designed to protect rich people from journalism.
It's kind of a "two wrongs sometimes make a right" sort of situation.
@dissembly I totally agree with you. Frankly, Im 11 and I threaten to kill people on a daily basis(usually in very ridiculous ways[I'm kind of a weird kid]). My classmates put up with it because they know I don't mean it, so if somebody reports, I shouldn't get in trouble. It's like no harm, no foul, and also no prison sentence.
Accessing even a private person's database means you can look at their private information.
If an identity thief gains unauthorized access to a database, looks around, doesn't *damage* a thing, but takes the information for their own use, they can hurt many people -even though they did no damage to the database itself.
And if someone can get even partial unauthorized access to the information on a country's defense database, there will be hell to pay.
That's why the 'unauthorized database access' laws need to stay.
Punishment should fit the severity crime though.
Actually people threaten to kill the president, the umpire, the neighbor's kid all the time. Are we really going to arrest everyone that says that? We as Americans are supposed to be able to speak freely, unless there is a legitimately implied threat, regardless of the medium. I agree that it doesn't hurt to take a closer look at the context, but to outright arrest someone without any investigation is ludicrous. Was there any indication that the threat was serious? A pattern? Any indicative behavior? Investigating is part of police work, before any arrest is made. We seem to have forgotten due process regardless of the medium used. We also seem to have forgotten that this was one of the main fears of our Founding Fathers and why free speech is protected in our Constitution. That doesn't mean free speech except on the internet. People have the right to be idiots. People forget that the internet can be a very PUBLIC forum. People don't think of how other people might misintepret what they've written in the spur of the moment, or in jest. Instead of "if even one guilty person slips by", it SHOULD be "if even one innoccent is falsely accused or incarcerated....What I see is an ambitious Public Defender out to make a name for themselves. Or an ambitious politican. Anyone seeking to make a name for themselves as "tough on crime". This whole trend is fed by the media looking to stir up controversy--and headlines. Instead I hope this kind of nonsense makes everyone involved look as (and feel as) stupid as they behaving.
I hate the direction our country is going.