Army Threatens Punks

Operation Punk Buster Continues is a post to the America's Army forums (thanks Slashdot) discussing cheating, PunkBuster countermeasures, ending with some threats:
Some of you (and clearly the bad guys are among them) don’t always remember that this game, and all accounts and derivative products, are the property of the United States Army. When you tamper with the game, not only are you breaking the EULA you’re misusing Army property – and, worse, you’re misusing US Army computer programs and equipment.

Tampering with software and servers owned or used by the Army is cyber crime.

In the early 1940’s, Japan learned an important lesson – “let the sleeping giant lie.” We may not react swiftly, but when we do it’s with unstoppable force. The Army has partners that deal with cyber crime as a matter of course. These include not just various Army IT departments, but also the Department of Justice, the Secret Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

It’s going to get uncomfortable for some of the bad guys, but you know what? They brought it on themselves. Knowing this anyone who continues to be bad is just plain foolish. Keep trying, though. Sooner or later the bad guy will realize we’ve known about him for a while… and by then it’s too late.

Allow me to speak directly to the bad guys for a moment: When you get banned, know that we know and have records showing you were doing something that’s a violation of terms of service, breaks your EULA, and also happens to be against the law. We know who you are, and can track down where you play from. We have incontrovertible proof you did something illegal. The Army is angry, and we’re coming for you.
View : : :
34.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 13, 2005, 02:48
34.
Re: No subject Jan 13, 2005, 02:48
Jan 13, 2005, 02:48
 
"derivative products, are the property of the United States Army. When you tamper with the game, not only are you breaking the EULA you’re misusing Army property – and, worse, you’re misusing US Army computer programs and equipment. "

ROFLMAO!! Whoever wrote that stuff needs to get a life, I mean seriously. Some points I would like to make

1. Reguarding the EULA. NOBODY reads these things. If you disagree with them, you aren't supposed to install and play the product. Therefore the cheat creators are not doing anything wrong because they did not agree to the EULA. If someone is actively using a cheat they created for their own use, then yes they are not meeting the terms of the EULA. In such a case the person is no longer entitled to use the software, but then if they disagreed with the EULA in the first place they were not entitled to be using it anyway.

2/ Nobody has ever agreed with everything in a EULA, and because of this nobody should be using any software. That is because all EULA's remove responsibility for any damage or losses which the software may cause to a users system. I seriously doubt that anyone is in agreement with this, because to find out whether a software is going to have such effect requires agreeing to the terms of the EULA. Perhaps the worst example of this happening in the real world was the Sony Demo Disc which wiped peoples memory cards, although Sony did give those users free games as compensation - although if you have ever tried to unlock everything in a game such as the WWE games there is NO compensation.

3. In my country I believe you have to be 18 or over to be bound by the terms of a contract, and that is what the EULA is, it's a CONTRACT it is not WORD OF LAW except in such cases where the terms are reflective of copyright laws of the end users country of residence. Therefore any persons under the age of 18 can modify or disassemble code for the purposes of cheat creation as such persons are not bound by the terms of the EULA contract.

4. If misuse of US Army equipment is a bad thing , then someone needs to tell that to every president post 1975 (my birth year). I have seen the movie Black Hawk Down, and I noticed that the guys in the air are relaying information to the guys on the ground. I fail to see the distinction between that and something such as a wallhack which can provide valuable tactical data.

Okay, now from a competitive point of view I do not appreciate persons using cheats in online multiplayer games. I just disagree with the notion that cheating somehow violates the law or the EULA.

If all First Person Shooters included a built in wallhack that was available to all players it would even the playfield dramatically. That's the solution I would like to see, although my first preference will always be for anti-cheat software that actually WORKS.

The big problem with current software is that they detect known cheat softwares. I believe that Cheating Deaths solution was to remove things that make cheating possible, like for example drawing players behind you that you do not have line of sight to. That's a great way of doing it, but the problem with that method is that if ANY part of the opposing player was exposed you would be able to see past whatever object they were behind.

The only fool proof system is that which involves monitoring by humans. One such example would be a voting system whereby everytime a player thought that another had BS'ed them a vote would be cast. If enough votes were cast by all players then the suspected player would be given a temporary ban. If over time a player accumulates enough of these temp bans, a permanent ban would be enforced.

But perhaps the major stumbling block in cheat prevention is the use of CD-KEY's. CD-KEY's ensure that only one person with that key can play at that time. They can also be used for banning. The problem with using CD-KEY's is that software can be repurchased and mayhem will ensue.

The only foolproof way of determining who the player is, besides sending a forensic sample over the net, would be to combine hardware identification along with a digital fingerprint of the users windows and software installation. Using this method a user would have to seriously alter their installed software configuration and replace hardware items to fool the system, a solution too costly and inconvenient to justify the cheating.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
3.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
 LOL
 34.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
 Re: No subject
35.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
2.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
4.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
5.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
6.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
19.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
22.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
24.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
46.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
     Re: No subject
101.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
104.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
7.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
 LOL
8.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
9.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
10.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
11.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
36.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
37.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
39.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
40.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
41.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
     Re: No subject
42.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
49.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
     Re: No subject
51.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
      Re: No subject
53.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
       Re: No subject
54.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
       Re: No subject
56.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
      Re: No subject
58.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
       Re: No subject
89.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
       Re: No subject
12.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
13.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
14.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
15.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
16.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
20.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
21.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
23.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
57.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
17.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
18.
Jan 12, 2005Jan 12 2005
74.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
25.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
26.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
27.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
28.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
29.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
43.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
47.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
30.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
31.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
32.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
33.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
38.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
44.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
45.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
48.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
50.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
52.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
55.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
60.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
62.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
63.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
65.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
66.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
    Uh oh...
90.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
95.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
     Re: No subject
85.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
59.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
61.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
64.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
67.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
69.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
70.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
71.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
73.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
68.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
72.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
75.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
102.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
97.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
76.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
77.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
80.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
81.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
82.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
   Re: heh
88.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
    Re: heh
91.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
     Re: heh
92.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
      Re: heh
93.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
       Re: heh
100.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
        Re: heh
96.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
      Re: heh
98.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
       Re: heh
99.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
        Re: heh
78.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
103.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
105.
Jan 14, 2005Jan 14 2005
108.
Jan 14, 2005Jan 14 2005
79.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
83.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
84.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
86.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
87.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
94.
Jan 13, 2005Jan 13 2005
107.
Jan 14, 2005Jan 14 2005
106.
Jan 14, 2005Jan 14 2005
109.
Jan 17, 2005Jan 17 2005
110.
Jan 17, 2005Jan 17 2005