@UnSteveDorkland Twitter satirist faces 4 charges in US court The anonymous satirist behind spoof Twitter account @UnSteveDorkland faces four criminal charges in a Californian court for making fun of a Daily Mail group executive. @UnSteveDorkland has been charged for computer fraud and abuse, data access and fraud and for defamation and online impersonation - all for a series of tweets …
This is in the USA right? What ever happened to free speach? First amendment rights and all that rubbish.
Pretty certain if this ever goes to court that'll be the first defence. The second of course being that it was clearly a false account since, who would make an account of themselves called "Dorkland" I mean really, nobody is that self effacing.
The only real charge is the idea that computer hacking was involved. Without any proof of that though other than suspicions this will get sunk before it starts.
@Gerard Krupa...
California may be weird, but California is a STATE... In the US, states do not issue patents, only the Federal Government in Foggy Bottom, in the guise of the US Patent and Trademark Office can do that. Even the state courts cannot rule on patent issues since they're not covered by state laws.
It's Wine O'Clock somewhere, but all I can see is this damn beer glass...
> No, irony is when you wait your whole life to make that trip and the plane goes down.
> oh wait, that's not it...
Ironically, that's actually the only example of genuine irony in the whole song. It is also ironic that people try to act smart and intelligent by saying there is no irony when in fact there is, they just don't recognise it. Tragic irony indeed.
This post has been deleted by its author
The purpose of this suit is to discover the identity of the person. When that has been established they can sue that person in a different jurisdiction, for example in the UK where there is no "first amendment" and free speech is not at all guaranteed, and drop the California suit.
In a way the living in a country with cameras on every street corner didnt?
i dont know any of the facts in this case but my prejudice on the basis of the presented evidence is that here is a bloke (not yet) caught taking the piss out of someone who has an altogether too high opinion of himself, and no sense of humour.
what a dork.
He's got to cross off the 5th amendment to defend himself by telling the various people not to split on him?
Sounds logical.
Why can't he just post a tiny 3 liner at the end of the Internet admitting his fault and promising not to do it again the way the Daily Mail promises never to buy crapperatzi photographs taken intrusively by stalkers?
Why do I get the impression that certain newspaper columnists are in the wrong business?
" costs associated with the computer fraud charges - with $5,000 for example spent on repatching the system that the defendant had allegedly breached.
Right, because being given a heads-up about a job you have not done properly 'costs'.
It's the sort of thing they probably pay consultants to tell them, and the work required to resolve it is a normal business overhead.
If you're doing it in the US, you're under US jurisdiction. Free speech and all. This is why accusations of hackery have been brought to bear, so there's no question that NotSteveDorkland is anything other than a dirty filthy criminal masquerading as a satirist.
Also, no-one knows where the account is maintained, hence the need to discover ownership. But its okay! Because when they determine that it was run by a Brit they can drop the US case because they know that they couldn't possibly win there. Fun times.
IPPA Computer: Welcome to the Identity Processsing Program of Uhmerica! Please insert your forearm into the forearm receptacle!
[Joe inserts his arm]
IPPA Computer: Thank you! Please speak your name as it appears on your current federal identity card, document G24L8!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: I'm not sure if...
IPPA Computer: You have entered the name "Not Sure." Is this correct, Not Sure?
Pvt. Joe Bowers: No, it's not correct...
IPPA Computer: Thank you! "Not" is correct. Is "Sure" correct?
Pvt. Joe Bowers: No, it's not, my name is Joe...
IPPA Computer: You have already confirmed your first name is "Not." Please confirm your last name, "Sure."
Pvt. Joe Bowers: My last name is not "Sure!"
IPPA Computer: Thank you, Not Sure!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: No, what I mean is my name is Joe...
IPPA Computer: Confirmation is complete. Please wait while I tattoo your new identity on your arm!
President Camacho: Now I understand everyone's shit's emotional right now. But I've got a 3 point plan that's going to fix EVERYTHING.
Congressman #1: Break it down, Camacho!
President Camacho: Number 1: We've got this guy Not Sure. Number 2: He's got a higher IQ than ANY MAN ALIVE. and Number 3: He's going to fix EVERYTHING.
Could it be the case that the information could only have come from someone who works for the Daily Mail Group (or perhaps someone in the industry) and this is an attempt to uncover who that person is so they can be sacked or get revenge...
Perhaps the trial isn't really the end game - it's more of a fishing expedition?
How about the scurrilous lies and slander and defamation on the pages of their filthy shit-rag?
Cries free-speech when their right to talk utter bollocks and poison may be curtailed but goes back to it's fascist/Nazi 1930's roots when someone dares to take this piss.
Shame on you!
So tell me that someone astute enough to understand, describe and satirize the laughable work practices of a "journalist" or "Execudroid" on an obviously false Twitter account is considered hacking not satire?
Then I assume the creator of Dilbert would be just as guilty?
As far as I am concerned, no one from the "Daily Fail" is allowed (or should be) to bring charges of hacking, impersonation or defamation of character; as their record of employment with that company is prima facie evidence enough that they the plaintiff are guilty of the same charges.
This post has been deleted by its author
Cracking tactic, file it in the US and ask for a trial by jury. Seems like it will invoke the Streisand Effect but actually it will just invoke the Chambers Effect (after Mr Chambers of #TwitterJokeTrial fame) where the cost of allegations and defending oneself is punitive in itself regardless of the outcome of the actual hearing.
You have shown yourselves up, yet again, as the hypocritical scum you are. I only hope that a few of your brighter readers decide to take another paper.
I am also grateful to you for letting me know that Steve Auckland is a pathetic arsehole with less right to exist than dog shit on the sole of one's shoe.
...the "perp" used a throw away email, and did everything through Tor, so that after all the money and fanfare, all they got were some IP addresses of Tor exit nodes hosted by university computer clubs, each on different continents.
The part that wouldn't make me laugh is tying up the courts with a fruitless endeavour, but until the judges in IT trials themselves gain knowledge of how the internet actually works, I have little sympathy for them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
