Is It Wrong to Fool Thieves?

[GeorgettaSterling]

This is an ethical question. I am looking for ethical/philosophical insight that will help me clarify this in my own mind.

I think (hope) that we can agree that it is generally unethical to con or fool people, particularly for monetary gain. When it is a big enough "con" they call it "fraud" and people can go to jail for it.

What I am wondering is - from an ethical standpoint, does it matter who is getting conned?

Some quick background - I was brainstorming with an acquaintance who had a computer program he wanted to promote. The whole "piracy" thing came up, and I threw out the idea that we could massively distribute fake versions of his program to fool the inevitable pirates (thieves, right?) that would try to steal the program. He responded that would be "unethical." I am not positive.

I am not asking about the efficiency or efficacy of a scheme to fool potential thieves, or whether this would just make thieves try harder or whatever - I am trying to figure out if it is really unethical to fool a person into downloading a non-functioning program when that person's intention was to STEAL that program.

I realize this isn't victimless. We would be wasting the thief's time (and while a thief, or thief wannabe, he is still a person, and a person's time has value). We would be consuming bandwidth on the internet, which the thief may be paying for. We would be consuming resources on free program hosts. So - all those people would be paying for this "prank". These aren't big costs, but I won't dismiss them entirely.

So wise Warriors, is it ethically wrong to fool a thief into downloading a big box of nothing when he was expecting to download an illegal copy of something he wanted?

Confused, confused, Georgetta

[PowerWealth247]

it is always wrong to initiate the use of fraud.

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by PowerWealth247

it is always wrong to initiate the use of fraud.

O.K. Thanks for your post!

But...why? Why is it "always wrong?" What are the lines (as far as you are concerned)? It seems there are NO lines - all "fraud" is wrong. Is it?

For example, some people put up signs that claim their house is protected by an alarm system, when in fact it isn't. They do this to discourage thieves from breaking in to their homes. They are LYING to those potential thieves - defrauding them. Others have fake dog recordings. Others have fake surveillance cameras. These are all intended to dupe potential wrong-doers. Are these similar to conning someone into thinking they succeeded in stealing something on the internet? If different - how come?

Yes, as I say, I am very confused. Within me is this weird knee-jerk reaction that seems to consider the victim of the fraud - basically their "victim-ness." But I suspect that shouldn't enter into the ethics of it. Or should it?

Georgetta

[HeySal]

You have a right to protect yourself. If what you are doing is in defense, you aren't doing anything wrong. However - if you are luring people into downloading crap that they might not have considered stealing in the first place, then it is wrong. Keep in mind always the difference between defense and coercion.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Unless you can differentiate between legal and illegal buyers, then this would
be wrong. If everybody gets the bogus copy, including legal buyers, then
you have done more harm than good.

However, if you can absolutely ensure that only illegal buyers get the bogus
copy, then I see no problem with it.

The police run stings and cons on crooks all the time.

You're trying to protect your own property and that in itself is no crime.
But if you can't keep from hurting legal buyers, then you can't do it.

Plain and simple.

[JohnMcCabe]

There's another layer to consider here, too.

There seems to an assumption that the thief downloading the bogus program would do so for personal use. If that assumption were true, and if we could be assured, as Steve said, that only the thieves got the bogus copies, I'd say go to it. They get what they deserve.

The truth is, though, that many of the thieves would be pirates looking to download the program for resale to innocents. Those are the people I'm saying we need to consider.

There's a back edge to that blade, too. If I buy a piece of software and it turns out to be junk, I don't blame the store I bought it from. I blame the company that puts out the software. As Nathan said, it's a good way to make enemies fast.

[Tina Golden]

I agree with those who make the point that it would be difficult to ensure the only one wasting their time would be the thief. In this situation, I think you would be playing with fire as to your reputation.

However, in the OP, you mention something about the ethics of the idea and I have to say that I don't see a problem with conning the con man. As soon as someone tries to steal from me or otherwise harm me intentionally, I believe that they forfeit all right to any consideration from me.

Tina

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by HeySal

You have a right to protect yourself. If what you are doing is in defense, you aren't doing anything wrong. However - if you are luring people into downloading crap that they might not have considered stealing in the first place, then it is wrong. Keep in mind always the difference between defense and coercion.

Thanks for your insight, Sal.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Unless you can differentiate between legal and illegal buyers, then this would
be wrong. If everybody gets the bogus copy, including legal buyers, then
you have done more harm than good.

However, if you can absolutely ensure that only illegal buyers get the bogus
copy, then I see no problem with it.

The police run stings and cons on crooks all the time.

You're trying to protect your own property and that in itself is no crime.
But if you can't keep from hurting legal buyers, then you can't do it.

Plain and simple.

Thanks for your response Steven! I know that I CAN differentiate between legal buyers and illegal downloaders. I would never suggest giving buyers a bogus anything - that is WRONG!!

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

There seems to an assumption that the thief downloading the bogus program would do so for personal use. If that assumption were true, and if we could be assured, as Steve said, that only the thieves got the bogus copies, I'd say go to it. They get what they deserve.

The truth is, though, that many of the thieves would be pirates looking to download the program for resale to innocents. Those are the people I'm saying we need to consider.

There's a back edge to that blade, too. If I buy a piece of software and it turns out to be junk, I don't blame the store I bought it from. I blame the company that puts out the software. As Nathan said, it's a good way to make enemies fast.

Thanks John! I agree that people might blame the producer rather than the vendor (although honestly, how many people unknowingly buy software from a pirate? MS Windows for $11 bought on a forum from a guy called "HackerSupreme", do the buyers really believe they are getting a legitimate copy?).

Still, I hadn't considered the victims of the pirate. I guess I would assume that the pirate would check the download (and find it nonfunctioning, save a "This is an illegal download - buy from the creator" type message) but of course that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

I agree with those who make the point that it would be difficult to ensure the only one wasting their time would be the thief. In this situation, I think you would be playing with fire as to your reputation.

However, in the OP, you mention something about the ethics of the idea and I have to say that I don't see a problem with conning the con man. As soon as someone tries to steal from me or otherwise harm me intentionally, I believe that they forfeit all right to any consideration from me.

Tina

Thanks Tina! I agree there could be reputation issues, but like you allude to, my chief (and selfish) concern was whether I was "unethical" to come up with such a thought. I too have difficulty sympathizing with criminals not getting what they were after...

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by Nathan Segal

The problem with your premise is not everyone who downloads your program would be a thief; there would be plenty of honest people, too, who would be angry that they were duped. You'd make enemies faster than you can count.

It's a bad idea. If you want to protect yourself, by all means do so, by encryption, Download Guard, etc., but to deliberately create a fake program is wrong.

Nathan, I appreciate your view. I humbly disagree that "not everyone who downloads your program would be a thief" - that can be easily dealt with.

I wasn't really looking to debate whether the idea was good or not, or other ways to protect a product. I threw an idea out to someone and expected to debate implementation strategies or efficacy, but that person essentially called me "unethical" which threw me for a loop. I needed to clarify the ethics behind this, not implementation. But thank you for your thoughts!

Originally Posted by Nathan Segal

Here's an example of what I'm talking about - Fake Antimalware.

There some legitimate programs out there, such as Spybot, Spy Sweeper, etc.,but there is an enormous number of fake programs being distributed online. At last count, I saw over 400 names, all designed to deceive users into downloading a fake program, which then begins to wreak havoc with their computers, slowing them down and even exposing the user to identity theft. (I've written extensively about this problem. It's much worse than many of us would choose to believe). Anyway, creating a program like that is a great way to make enemies. You would run the danger of putting yourself in this camp and I don't think you want to do that.

Nathan, I think you are losing the plot a little (no offense meant).

Fake antimalware isn't targeted at thieves - it is targeted at unsophisticated general consumers. It specifically victimizes people who are regular consumers with no obvious intentions of STEALING something. Further, the "bot/hacking" aspect of these programs is not only scammy and unethical, but illegal. I think that is a very clear case of unethical behavior.

Let me make this clearer, using your anti-virus analogy.

Joe Sneaky wants antivirus/antimalware. He does his research and decides that Kaspersky suite is the best (all the reviews talk about how great it is for only $79). Then he googles "download Kaspersky cracked free rapidshare" and finds a host of forums in the SERPS. After all, $79 is a lot of money...and software, ebooks, etc. should all be free on the internet.

He goes to "HackerHeaven", whose tagline is "Why buy when you can download cracked products here for free?" The subtagline is "F*ck commercial programmers, we are jackin' those muthaf*ckas".

He finds the post for Kaspersky (written by a guy calling himself "SexyGansta", who has attained the status of "Junior Robber" on this forum), which describes how to apply the crack and bypass the license, and have the software for free without paying. It gives him a nice Rapidshare link where the software suite, crack and instructions are nicely RAR'd. He downloads.

When he opens it up and installs, all he gets is a message informing him that the download is illegal, there are no cracked versions, and if he wants this software he can either go to the official Kaspersky site and download the free trial or buy a license.

Now there is NO WAY that Mr. Joe Sneaky was innocently looking for an antivirus solution and was cruelly duped. He was looking to steal this software, and was denied. I would never suggest that we do anything bad to someone's computer (unlike those fake antimalware programs) - that is unethical and illegal. All we have done here is frustrate someone who very knowingly tried to steal some software. It is easy to target thieves - there are hundreds of blogs and forums solely dedicated to stealing software and ebooks, and it is VERY clear on those sites.

Now that the scenario is clear - if in fact that forum post were by me, posing as a "legitimate" software cracker and robber, would I have done something unethical? Was the very idea unethical? I know I am being a bit repetitive, but I am having a mini-crisis wondering if I am such a bad person for just coming up with this thought.

Regards, Georgetta

[Jim Gillum]

I am wondering...why would you waste your time?

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by Jim Gillum

I am wondering...why would you waste your time?

I wouldn't. And if we are talking practicality, I could post several pages here on how this could all be done on total autopilot, beyond a couple hours setup.

But I am not talking about the method, the scheme, etc. I am struggling with the ethics of the idea. More specifically, the ethics of fooling thieves.

Regards, Georgetta

[jazbo]

Yes do it, go for it.

[FaJeeb]

I knew a guy who made a piece software that supposable allowed someone to activate and view another persons webcam from a remote location, without that other person even knowing. He charged like $4.99 for it or something. He said about half of them wanted their money back, but half wouldn't even bother... so he had all of that money sent to an account and it just got bigger bigger and he's waiting until he's 40 to cash in. I keep trying to track him down and find out how things turned out, but can never seem to get a hold of him. He had over $60k about 5 maybe 6 years ago. I heard he was a school teacher or something.

[garyv]

I don't know if this is the same as what you're talking about, but the entertainment industry has been doing it for years. They upload crap files to the torrent sites all of the time that are made to look like movies or songs for download.

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by garyv

I don't know if this is the same as what you're talking about, but the entertainment industry has been doing it for years. They upload crap files to the torrent sites all of the time that are made to look like movies or songs for download.

Thanks Gary - - yes, that is one of the things I was talking about - I just didn't want to open THAT particular can of worms in addition to the ones I already opened.

Since folks like to talk "method" - it isn't a very efficient one, since there is typically a lot of user feedback around torrents, which isn't as true of most "sharing" blog posts, certain forums, etc.

So - the folks that are trying to download "Saving Private Ryan" via a torrent pretty much know they are trying to steal the movie. And when the movie company uploads a fake torrent, they use up a lot of time and bandwidth for those downloaders. Was it ethically wrong for them to do that? Did they "entrap" people by putting up the fake download in the first place, tempting the poor pirates?

Some folks here suggest I should already know the answers...

Regards, Georgetta

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by FaJeeb

I knew a guy who made a piece software that supposable allowed someone to activate and view another persons webcam from a remote location, without that other person even knowing. He charged like $4.99 for it or something. He said about half of them wanted their money back, but half wouldn't even bother... so he had all of that money sent to an account and it just got bigger bigger and he's waiting until he's 40 to cash in. I keep trying to track him down and find out how things turned out, but can never seem to get a hold of him. He had over $60k about 5 maybe 6 years ago. I heard he was a school teacher or something.

Well, I am pretty sure that SELLING phony software is a criminal act as well as being unethical. Maybe you can't get a hold of him because his cell mates won't let him use the phone?

Regards, Georgetta

[FaJeeb]

Originally Posted by GeorgettaSterling

Well, I am pretty sure that SELLING phony software is a criminal act as well as being unethical. Maybe you can't get a hold of him because his cell mates won't let him use the phone?

Regards, Georgetta

Actually just got a hold of him, he lives out in CA now. He's does data stuff for an oil company now.

[donhendrick]

Originally Posted by GeorgettaSterling

I threw out the idea that we could massively distribute fake versions of his program to fool the inevitable pirates (thieves, right?) that would try to steal the program.

Confused, confused, Georgetta

This would not fool anyone. Why would anyone publish a non-working fake program? Sorry the premise is not logical.

If you are distributing a fake program then you would be the problem.
Using bandwidth and peoples time like this would affect innocent people and companies.

I am no lawyer, but fooling the outlaw is done everyday, but there are limits.
You have to be careful in your "sting" as it will be an issue of entrapment under certain conditions.

If your distribution was for the purposes of catching the pirate(s) then under certain conditions it may be ok, but as I said it would not work as described so its a mute point.

Piracy will continue to be a problem as long as countries allow it to happen with in their boarders.

So I would say in your scenerio, the answer is not ethical.

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by donhendrick

This would not fool anyone. Why would anyone publish a non-working fake program? Sorry the premise is not logical.

If you are distributing a fake program then you would be the problem.
Using bandwidth and peoples time like this would affect innocent people and companies.

I am no lawyer, but fooling the outlaw is done everyday, but there are limits.
You have to be careful in your "sting" as it will be an issue of entrapment under certain conditions.

If your distribution was for the purposes of catching the pirate(s) then under certain conditions it may be ok, but as I said it would not work as described so its a mute point.

Piracy will continue to be a problem as long as countries allow it to happen with in their boarders.

So I would say in your scenerio, the answer is not ethical.

Thanks for your thoughts Don.

I don't think I worded it well in my original post. If you google a bit you will find literally hundreds of blogs dedicated to posting download links for pirated software, and probably hundreds of such forums also. While on some warez forums, feedback would quickly deactivate your post of a non-working version, on the blogs there is generally no feedback. They tend to rank well in Google for piracy-type queries (e.g. "Windows 7 cracked free download rapidshare"). It was distribution of "links" to those sites that I meant when I said "massive distribution" - basically the idea of taking over the search results and high traffic results for piracy-based queries.

It isn't really an original idea - as posted above, music and movie publishers have done this on torrent sites, and I know of one software developer (Xrumer - the forum spamming software) that did this too on forums. As I had suggested, I wasn't so much interested in the technical aspects, but rather the ethical ones. You and some others have alluded to an unethical aspect to it due to "entrapment", which I hadn't directly considered, although I did consider the bandwidth usage of innocent parties.

If we are talking stategies - - I have noticed several small software producers who have done SEO to rank their official software sites for piracy-based search terms. So, their official site will rank in Google for people who are searching for a cracked or warez version. They haven't taken over all the search results, but one is better than none, I guess...

Georgetta

[Dital]

A wrong cannot be righted by another wrong