- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LHSAA confirms investigation into Destrehan football upated w/penalties
Posted on 11/1/13 at 1:05 pm to Choupique19
Posted on 11/1/13 at 1:05 pm to Choupique19
quote:
Ok, but the LHSAA finally did get involved. Criminal charges are entirely overboard.
What next? Arrest the baseball coach for stealing pitcher/catcher signals?
If they steal the signals by entirely legal means, such as a camera pointed at the catcher's hands, no.
If they broke into somewhere or tapped a phone to steal them, charge the frickers.
And to elaborate on my position, I work in a secure data environment and we take a VERY dim view on unauthorized access.
People just viewing some of this stuff without authorization could get criminal charges and civil charges.
This post was edited on 11/1/13 at 1:15 pm
2
Posted on 11/1/13 at 1:48 pm to teke184
As an addition, SL Administration did not press charges against these individuals. The LPSO arrested based upon information provided to them from the coaches and girlfriend. I believe if you ask SL, they received the items they were requesting from LHSAA and are finished with this issue.
The criminal charges came about because SL had to bring in the LPSO to get the IP information. Once it became evident there was unauthorized access after interviews, the LPSO proceeded with the arrests.
Lastly, the LHSAA really had no other choice but to get involved. But, let's be clear on this point, the LHSAA did not aid in the investigation and only stepped in after all the information, details, coach's interviews, etc were provided to the LHSAA.
If the LHSAA would be interested in finishing this saga, they would push to proceed with the investigation to determine the physical addresses of the last two IP addresses and whether others at DHS were involved or had knowledge.
The criminal charges came about because SL had to bring in the LPSO to get the IP information. Once it became evident there was unauthorized access after interviews, the LPSO proceeded with the arrests.
Lastly, the LHSAA really had no other choice but to get involved. But, let's be clear on this point, the LHSAA did not aid in the investigation and only stepped in after all the information, details, coach's interviews, etc were provided to the LHSAA.
If the LHSAA would be interested in finishing this saga, they would push to proceed with the investigation to determine the physical addresses of the last two IP addresses and whether others at DHS were involved or had knowledge.
This post was edited on 11/1/13 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 11/1/13 at 2:14 pm to teke184
quote:
If they steal the signals by entirely legal means, such as a camera pointed at the catcher's hands, no.
By entirely legal means, do you mean like if they were to use login credentials willingly given to them by a user, to access said user's account?
quote:
If they broke into somewhere or tapped a phone to steal them, charge the frickers.
They didn't break into, tap, or hack anything. They logged in with a username and password that was given to them.
quote:
People just viewing some of this stuff without authorization could get criminal charges and civil charges.
They had authorization. Unless you think the kid giving them his account password is not authorization to access his account. Good luck with that one though.
Fine them, suspend them, make the team forfeit, let the Lhasa and the school board do whatever for their ethical issues. Criminal charges are absolutely ridiculous.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 2:26 pm to Open Your Eyes
I'm talking about the viewing of stuff at *my* office, not HUDL, in the bottom part.
Just because the kid had access as a member of the football team doesn't mean he had a right to distribute the ID and password as he saw fit.
If my wife gave me her password and I went tooling around her office's network, that office could still charge me for various hacking offenses even though she gave me the ID and password because I had no right or authorization from that office to be there.
quote:
They had authorization. Unless you think the kid giving them his account password is not authorization to access his account. Good luck with that one though.
Just because the kid had access as a member of the football team doesn't mean he had a right to distribute the ID and password as he saw fit.
If my wife gave me her password and I went tooling around her office's network, that office could still charge me for various hacking offenses even though she gave me the ID and password because I had no right or authorization from that office to be there.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 2:27 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
They had authorization. Unless you think the kid giving them his account password is not authorization to access his account. Good luck with that one though.
Usually this is taken care of by including a single sentence in the terms of service that you aren't allowed to share your password or provide others access to your account. Its pretty standard language for almost any online account now days, and is in the HUDL terms of use LINK.
quote:
2. Registration.
When you sign up to become a User, you will also be asked to create a password. You are entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password. You agree not to use the account, username, or password of another User at any time or disclose your password to any third party.
Account access is usually provided on a limited/personal use basis.
Kid had no authority to give the Destrehan coaches authority to access his account.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 2:43 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
By entirely legal means, do you mean like if they were to use login credentials willingly given to them by a user, to access said user's account?
Are you 100% sure of this?
Also, if the individual who provided this information, willingly or unwillingly, is a minor, does it change anything?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 4:48 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Open Your Eyes
Hypothetical;
You have a wife, and you share a bank account. You break up with your wife because she's banging me. She gives me the account number and I clean you out. In your f*cked up way of thinking, I did nothing wrong. Totally apples and oranges I know, but it makes neither of the situations right. And while I believe criminal charges in this case are extreme, they were still doing something they knew was wrong and should face the consequences. Absolutely. Acadiana had to forfeit 4 games for playing a sub in blowouts in which his papers were forged and the coaches had no knowledge of. They would have completely missed the playoffs had they ha to forfeit another game. Sh*t isn't fair sometimes but it's the way it is.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 5:27 pm to teke184
quote:
Just because the kid had access as a member of the football team doesn't mean he had a right to distribute the ID and password as he saw fit.
quote:
Usually this is taken care of by including a single sentence in the terms of service that you aren't allowed to share your password or provide others access to your account. Its pretty standard language for almost any online account now days, and is in the HUDL terms of use LINK.
quote:
Kid had no authority to give the Destrehan coaches authority to access his account.
Exactly. If anyone should be facing criminal charges here, it's the kid.
And for the record, no I don't think the kid should be charged. My point is NOBODY should be getting arrested or having charges brought against them in this case.
And as for the comment about the perusing wife's office network, that is still not the same thing assuming her network is harboring some type of confidential/personal information where identity theft, etc are at stake. Also in that case, I'm quite sure your wife would be in a shitload of trouble for violating whatever user confidentiality agreement.
I think it was the Rummel coach that made reference to kids that had graduated still logging into their hudl accounts. Or another kid's dad watching film on his son's account. Surely all of these people are going to arrested any minute now, right?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 5:32 pm to LC412000
quote:
Are you 100% sure of this?
No I'm not. That has been the narrative given up to this point as far as I know, without any real dispute. As I said earlier in this thread, if the coach stole the password or somehow forced the kid to give it to him, then yes criminal charges are appropriate.
quote:
Also, if the individual who provided this information, willingly or unwillingly, is a minor, does it change anything?
I don't see why it should. The kid is 16 years old I think I read, and previously on the football team. Unless you can convince me that a 16 year old that has played football was so incredibly innocent and oblivious to the world that he had no idea what his uncle, who just so happens to be a coach for next week's opponent, would want to use his film account for.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 5:37 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
Totally apples and oranges I know,
Then why make such a retarded comparison in the first place?
quote:
but it makes neither of the situations right. And while I believe criminal charges in this case are extreme, they were still doing something they knew was wrong and should face the consequences. Absolutely. Acadiana had to forfeit 4 games for playing a sub in blowouts in which his papers were forged and the coaches had no knowledge of. They would have completely missed the playoffs had they ha to forfeit another game. Sh*t isn't fair sometimes but it's the way it is.
I have already said fine/suspend the coaches, forfeit the game, let the Lhsaa and school board handle the ethical issues however they see fit. But criminal charges are completely inappropriate. You pretty much agreed with everything I said. What are you trying to argue exactly?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 5:42 pm to Open Your Eyes
Also, since its obviously appropriate here to make real world comparisons with bank accounts, private/sensitive information, etc., why is nobody talking about whoever at SL is responsible for managing user account access? Because in the real world, if an IT guy doesn't terminate a former employee''s network access, and that former employee uses his access to damage the company and/or its customers after he is no longer working there, that IT guy is going to be in deep shite.
Since everyone is out for blood here, what is the status of that SL coach?
Since everyone is out for blood here, what is the status of that SL coach?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 6:21 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Also, if the individual who provided this information, willingly or unwillingly, is a minor, does it change anything?
I don't see why it should. The kid is 16 years old I think I read, and previously on the football team. Unless you can convince me that a 16 year old that has played football was so incredibly innocent and oblivious to the world that he had no idea what his uncle, who just so happens to be a coach for next week's opponent, would want to use his film account for.
In this sense, then all the DHS players who knowingly reacted to SL calls, cadences, etc should be suspended for the remainder of the year?
Again, nobody on this board knows if the acct info was willingly handed over to the DHS coaches.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 6:48 pm to LC412000
For those that want to stop arguing...
quote:
Defensive coordinator Lance Ledet was issued a criminal summons after detectives talked to him today.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 7:04 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
They had authorization. Unless you think the kid giving them his account password is not authorization to access his account. Good luck with that one though.
My argument is that the kid giving them the password does not give them permission to look at the other teams hudl account. You say "fine them, suspend them" while at the same time trying to make it sound like what they did wasn't wrong. It's the kids fault he gave them the password, it was the coaches who took it upon themselves to act on that impulse. Not just the one who got the password. They did something that in my mind is inexcusable. Don't arrest them, but they shouldn't be coaching either. Everyone is looking for an edge but this is bush league. Don't take it out on the kids, and the sad thing is that those same kids are learning from these coaches that doing this is ok. Hopefully they set an example so those kids see that actions have consequences. That's what I'm saying.
Posted on 11/1/13 at 10:07 pm to LC412000
quote:
In this sense, then all the DHS players who knowingly reacted to SL calls, cadences, etc should be suspended for the remainder of the year?
How are what you quoted from me and what you responded with even remotely related?
People are really going overboard looking for blood here. I'm sorry, but it just is not this serious. What the patriots did why spy gate was much worse in every way than this, and nobody was ever put in handcuffs that I can recall.
Someone else made the analogy earlier of stealing signals in baseball. The coaches don't even have to be involved in that, the players can do it themselves. Are you in favor of some weird interpretation that would suspend those players too?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 10:18 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
My argument is that the kid giving them the password does not give them permission to look at the other teams hudl account.
And you think I am saying different? All I'm saying is that what they did does not warrant criminal charges.
quote:
You say "fine them, suspend them" while at the same time trying to make it sound like what they did wasn't wrong.
I have never once said or implied what they did wasn't wrong. In fact, I've said twice to let the Lhsaa and school board punish them however they see fit. If that includes not allowing them to coach anymore as you suggested, then so be it,
I have only said their actions did not warrant criminal charges. And you have agreed with that. Twice. For some reason you are being extremely obtuse about it though and trying to make it seem like I'm saying something that I'm not. What's your deal?
This post was edited on 11/1/13 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 11/1/13 at 10:49 pm to Open Your Eyes
Let me try and figure out what are your arguments?
The coaches should not have been charged with any crime?
Whatever punishment is handed out by the LHSAA and the St. Charles School Board on the coaches is fine?
The student who supposedly gave the account information away willingly is the main person at fault?
The coaches should not have been charged with any crime?
Whatever punishment is handed out by the LHSAA and the St. Charles School Board on the coaches is fine?
The student who supposedly gave the account information away willingly is the main person at fault?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 11:01 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
By entirely legal means, do you mean like if they were to use login credentials willingly given to them by a user, to access said user's account?
That's illegal.
quote:
They didn't break into, tap, or hack anything. They logged in with a username and password that was given to them.
"I didn't break into the building officer, I convinced one of their former disgruntled employees to give me a key."
This post was edited on 11/1/13 at 11:03 pm
Posted on 11/1/13 at 11:02 pm to LC412000
quote:
The coaches should not have been charged with any crime?
Correct
quote:
Whatever punishment is handed out by the LHSAA and the St. Charles School Board on the coaches is fine?
Correct
quote:
The student who supposedly gave the account information away willingly is the main person at fault?
In terms of criminal charges? Correct. I'll also point out that I've already said the kid should not face criminal charges for this either, before you freak out about him being a minor.
What is so difficult to understand?
Posted on 11/1/13 at 11:24 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
All I'm saying is that what they did does not warrant criminal charges.
Yes, yes it does.
Hacking is a criminal act anytime you use a computer WITHOUT proper authorization, password or not. It is VIRTUAL access to a protected are.
A former bank employee who knows the security code to the door, and might even still have keys, IN NO WAY gives you authorization to access the bank premises. If caught you will be arrested. Same premise, except you are in a 'virtual' secured area.
Please tell me youre just trolling
Page 19 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News