Granted, this comes out of Japan, but that’s where the technology starts that makes its way to our shores. The problem is that the lines between the games played online and the reality of flesh and blood people is blurring to the degree that when a digital character is “murdered”, a real person is arrested.
A 43-year-old Japanese woman whose sudden divorce in a virtual game world made her so angry that she killed her online husband’s digital persona has been arrested on suspicion of hacking, police said Thursday.
The woman, who is jailed on suspicion of illegally accessing a computer and manipulating electronic data, used his identification and password to log onto popular interactive game “Maple Story” to carry out the virtual murder in mid-May.
Not being an online game player, perhaps I lack a certain degree of comprehension of how serious some people take their games. Apparently, bot the “husband” and “wife” in this exercise took it too seriously.
“I was suddenly divorced, without a word of warning. That made me so angry,” the official quoted her as telling investigators and admitting the allegations.
The woman had not plotted any revenge in the real world, the official said.
She has not yet been formally charged, but if convicted could face a prison term of up to five years or a fine up to $5,000.
While the players involved may have lost their perspective about the relative importance of a game as compared to real life, it appears that Japanese law enforcement is no better. Can you imagine the trial, with the “wife” testifying that the digital husband “needed killin’.”
While Eugene Volokh finds this scenario legally palatable because the claimed wrong is illegally accessing a computer, and some commenters to his post have noted that digital currency actually sells for the real stuff on eBay, proving that people are indeed loopy when it comes to their games, it seems that he’s a bit too focused on the trees to see the forest. It’s a game. No real people were harmed in the playing of this game. It’s not real.
Is this the evil that was to be cured by anti-hacking laws? Do we really want to imprison people for their virtual crimes? The fact that prosecutors might be able to squeeze a virtual crime enough to fit within a law existing to prevent some other wrong doesn’t make it proper. And this one is just off the wall.
I’m sure someone out there plays computer games. I’m sure someone out there takes their games very seriously. But do you believe that some digital game is so serious, so real, that it could ever be worth imprisoning someone? While I doubt anyone will be bold enough to try to explain why this should be taken seriously, I bet that someone will think it, saying, “you don’t get it, I played for weeks and she just ruined my avatar.” Get out more, will ya?
Of course, this happened in Japan. It could never happen here, because we’re nowhere near as wacky as they are. Right?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m speaking tomorrow to the NACDL on jurors and social networking — thanks for adding the best slide in my PowerPoint. It looks like the purported crime is “hacking” — she stole his log-on and deleted him, rather than making her avatar shoot down his avatar. Maybe if she’d done that, she’d be fine?
As I read the story, she was given his password while they were still “married”, and deleted him after the “divorce”. But even talking about this suggests that this is a real problem rather than one that exists only in virtual reality.
Send my regards to the NACDL.
I don’t have as much of a problem with this prosecution. Sure, the result of the crime is a silly “deletion” (to you, but let me tell you if someone deleted my accounts on many of the websites I visit, I would be furious), but the act of stealing the password itself should absolutely be punished (not by a jail term obviously).
What is the difference between this and someone hacking into your blog to post racist posts under your name? Or just deleting your blog altogether?
First, let’s remember that facts matter. She didn’t steal the password, so let’s not start with non-existent “facts”. Second, it’s a game. She didn’t access his computer and delete any substantive data. She “killed” his avatar in a game.
The difference is facts, and like a say, facts matter. What you describe is what the law intends to prevent. Killing an avatar in a game is not. Care to reconsider using the facts this time?
She didn’t steal the password, but she did misuse it, and deliberately. (I’m not sure why he gave it to her, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t so that she could “kill” his character.)
By analogy, if you gave me the keys/password to Simple Justice so that I could clean up some of my typeaux and I then went on to muck up your posts, I’d have done something wrong — and not just because your posts are more substantive than a game character.
As to whether deliberate, malicious misuse of computer access is a crime in Japan, I dunno, but it wouldn’t bother me if it was, there or here. While a game character isn’t of any value — monetary or emotional — to me (I’m not into online gaming since online poker became illegal here), it was obviously of some value, both monetary and emotional, to the guy, and mucking about with his stuff in unauthorized and unagreed-upon ways was wrong.
Illegal? Depends on what the laws say. As many folks have suggested in other contexts, just because something maybe should have been illegal doesn’t mean that the law should be stretched beyond the breaking point to cover an action that it, well, doesn’t.
(That said, I think that in the US we’ve got better things to lock people up for than this sort of stuff. Still, while I don’t do online gaming, both of my kids play World of Warcraft, and have fun there, and have spent some time building up their characters. I’d be kind of ticked on their behalf if somebody deleted their accounts.)
There’s lots of things in some of this online stuff that I find bizarre, but, then again, it’s not my thing.
Virtual rape? http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504 Yucko plus; too creepy for words, but . . .
Fine – misusing the password. Whatever. My analogy (as modified) still stands. That’s exactly what Joel said. What if I misused your blog password to delete your posts?
You’re imposing your view that an “avatar” is worthless. To hundreds of thousands of people, it is not.
You are showing the same tunnel vision that the mainstream media (and plenty of other people) show toward blogs.
I’m not into online gaming either, but I am active on several message boards. If anyone misused my password to delete my accounts there, I’d be righteously pissed.
Whether it should be a crime is another matter, but just because you don’t understand or like the activity (second life, say) doesn’t mean it isn’t worthy of some protection.
Don’t forget, Joel’s not a lawyer. The question isn’t whether an avatar is “worthless”, but whether an avatar used in a game is the equivalent to substantive data stored on a computer. I don’t say that the “husband” shouldn’t be pissed, but that it isn’t a crime. You reach the same conclusion. The woman in Tokyo is in jail (here that, jail!) which is what I find ridiculous.
So if it shouldn’t be a crime, then she shouldn’t be in jail. So what your saying is your “sticking to your guns” except that you now agree with me? Why, when there’s no disagreement, do you try to create one?
So if it shouldn’t be a crime, but is “worthy of some protection,” what type of protection and how would that protection be enforced? Perhaps a civil action is in order, but my issue is with a woman sitting in jail for killing an avatar in an online game.
She’s sitting in jail for misusing a password.
I don’t think it should be condoned! The password is the portal to our increasingly online world. Misuse (or theft) of a password should have some consequence.
It’s like I give you a key to my house and you enter the house and throw a party and break a vase or two.
Should you have a criminal conviction? Probably not, but a few hours of community service won’t do you any harm.
Maybe the real problem is that she wasn’t granted any bond or bail. This is the kind of case that needs to be resolved short of jail-time and a conviction, but you seem to be arguing that she shouldn’t be arrested at all.
She should be barred from playing the game for 5-10. But it was a game. Maybe I am an old-timer, but I wouldn’t put the guy who knocked over the checkerboard because he got angry in jail either.
If you give me the key to your house, and I use it and steal you things, I’m guilty of the theft, but not the breaking and entering. I would be a trespasser ab initio civilly, but use of the key you gave me would not be a crime. So here, her use of the password is the key, freely given, and her offense is the virtual murder. Either you think her killing the avatar is a crime or not. As for the degree of punishment, that’s a separate issue.
Games aren’t new. That this game had a password doesn’t change the fact that it was a game. There are many things that make us angry but don’t bring criminal consequences. This should be added to the list.
It’s not just a game, it’s also art.
Say I offer the side of my house to a community organization to paint a mural promoting racial harmony. A couple of nights later someone else defaces the mural by spraypainting graffiti. I didn’t lose any money, and the mural artists worked for free, but it’s still a crime, right? Some form of minor vandalism, maybe?
The computer game case is more complicated—it’s as if the guy who defaced it is also one of the artists who originally had permission to paint it—so it’s not clear that this particular incident is a crime, but I wouldn’t rule it out in principle.
I figured you would be the first person to argue the critical importance of computer gaming to western civilization. And now, you’ve come up with tag line: It’s not just a game, it’s also art. Except she didn’t hurt the game, but just one player’s avatar. And the difference between the painting on your house and a computer game avatar is that one is real, but you have to guess which one.