Help please my school is threatening to apply a warning to my academic record

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

sportsdoc7

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
What happened is that my school has a computer registration system for classes. This year when they switched over to a proprietary registration system, my excessive registration attempts have raised eyebrows and now they are offering me a "deal." They want me to admit to breaking school computer policy and then they will apply a "warning" onto my academic record.

Honestly I think the fact that my excessive registration attempts is a subjective term, and I think that it is difficult to prove that my registration attempts really did violate computer policy as I did not use a malicious attack, but just registered WAAAAAAAY more than anyone else.

How bad is a "warning" on my academic record when applying for med schools?

Also if my case gets sent up to the faculty disciplinary student committee and I'm found innocent does that mean that I'm free? Or is it considered still a stain? Would such activity be on my record?

thanks.
 
automated the registration process which they are claiming violates computer policy. Apparently my sole registration attempts for 2 classes (last classes i needed for med school prereq) exceeded 50% of the schools general population's attempts in total. That's kinda hard to explain away. But I guess no one else figured out how to automate the process even though it is excruciatingly simple to do.

I'm worried that if i get a warning on my academic record I'll be seen as a troublemaker, when it was just an honest mistake. My bot only submitted every 8 seconds. So it wasn't completely destroying the port. Playing Halo should eat up way more badwidth then pressing submit on a registration form once every 7 seconds. I don't think I was really, "taxing" the system even if my attempts did far and away beat the crud out of everyone else.

they are trying to scare me and say they may even press academic dishonesty charges on me.
 
That sounds ridiculous. Speak to the people in the registrar and/or the academic judiciary regarding this. If they do place a "warning" on your record then just explain what happened in your amcas application. Seems like a minor problem to me
 
So basically, it shows that you've been registering with multiple accounts or multiple times? Hmm, never heard of this.
 
I predict that some med school adcoms will not understood what you did or why it was frowned upon by your undergrad institution. If I understand correctly, you created a bit of computer code to log onto the system every 8 seconds in an attempt to get into the registration system so that you could register. When everyone is trying to register for popular classes and they get the computer equivalent of a busy signal and have to "hang up" and "dial again" (to use old-fashioned language the adcom folks would understand) you have an advantage by having automated the "redialing" to increase the odds that you'd be one of the first who would "get through". You took advantage of a loophole in the system. Whether an adcom finds you devious or clever remains to be seen. I would expect that some of them would find it no big deal -- and later casually ask you if you could help them get into the TicketMaster system to get them some good concert tickets that usually sell out in 10 minutes. 😉
 
So your bot tried to register over 10,000 times in one day? Dude.... thats pretty neat hahaha

I don't think you should have an issue, but then again, I dont know anything
 
This is the stupidest I can think offer wanting to sanction a prospective student.

Can you appeal this decision to the Dean/President/Provost.

At the worst case, you'll have to explain it in your app, and in interview, which will make for an interesting conversation. I suspect that some people might want you to rig up an automatic bidding system for eBay!

If you can explain it the way the learned LizzyM did, you'll be fine.



What happened is that my school has a computer registration system for classes. This year when they switched over to a proprietary registration system, my excessive registration attempts have raised eyebrows and now they are offering me a "deal." They want me to admit to breaking school computer policy and then they will apply a "warning" onto my academic record.

Honestly I think the fact that my excessive registration attempts is a subjective term, and I think that it is difficult to prove that my registration attempts really did violate computer policy as I did not use a malicious attack, but just registered WAAAAAAAY more than anyone else.

How bad is a "warning" on my academic record when applying for med schools?

Also if my case gets sent up to the faculty disciplinary student committee and I'm found innocent does that mean that I'm free? Or is it considered still a stain? Would such activity be on my record?

thanks.
 
I would view this sort of tempered engineering a plus on your application -- it would certainly make you stand out! Would be a fun thing to talk about during interviews too.

Though it would suck if some schools automatically weeded you out for just having clicked the "subject to disciplinary action" button on AMCAS, regardless of reason.
 
What policy did you violate exactly? If the policy itself is very vague (such as 'students should use the school network in a fair manner') there is your out if you have to argue the case in front of a committee.
 
In all fairness....who the hell automates their registration? I went to a university with 45,000 students and I never needed to 'automate' my registration to get the classes I wanted. Seems like a really stupid move on your part, sorry bro - honest mistake or not, it just sounds shady.
 
Does this remind anyone else of the penny shaving scheme from Office Space?

8228_peter2.jpg


OP, how many registration attempts did your bot make?
 
I think that if they're asking you to take a deal, you have the right to ask to see in writing the exact policy that they are saying you violated. Seeing that should give you a better idea as to whether you have a leg to stand on.

Personally, no matter how trivial, I would not want this on my record. You can't fully predict how it could come back to haunt you -- what if you make another stupid but rather harmless mistake later and this or another institution comes down harder on you b/c you've been "warned" before?
 
In all fairness....who the hell automates their registration? I went to a university with 45,000 students and I never needed to 'automate' my registration to get the classes I wanted. Seems like a really stupid move on your part, sorry bro - honest mistake or not, it just sounds shady.

Some state schools have been hit hard. I've never had issues as I had priority registration, but some people have been set back 1-2 years purely because the prereqs they needed were filled as soon as registration opened.
 
What happened is that my school has a computer registration system for classes. This year when they switched over to a proprietary registration system, my excessive registration attempts have raised eyebrows and now they are offering me a "deal." They want me to admit to breaking school computer policy and then they will apply a "warning" onto my academic record.

Honestly I think the fact that my excessive registration attempts is a subjective term, and I think that it is difficult to prove that my registration attempts really did violate computer policy as I did not use a malicious attack, but just registered WAAAAAAAY more than anyone else.

How bad is a "warning" on my academic record when applying for med schools?

Also if my case gets sent up to the faculty disciplinary student committee and I'm found innocent does that mean that I'm free? Or is it considered still a stain? Would such activity be on my record?

thanks.

You used a program that gave you an advantage. I don't think this is something that you should just brush off. It obviously made enough of a splash for them to take the time to track you down. Colleges don't have the money for very large amounts of servers and so if your program took up more of the limited banwidth they can hold from all student I can see how they would get mad over it. I would say admit to what you did and say you were just trying to register for class and that you didn't mean to cause a problem and won't do it again in the future. Like LizzyM said a warning probably won't hold you back so be honest and open.
 
I know people at my school used course sniper all the time. Schools should either limit the rate of attempts or accommodate a queue. Getting cross with you for doing this is counter productive in more ways than one.
 
What happened is that my school has a computer registration system for classes. This year when they switched over to a proprietary registration system, my excessive registration attempts have raised eyebrows and now they are offering me a "deal." They want me to admit to breaking school computer policy and then they will apply a "warning" onto my academic record.

Honestly I think the fact that my excessive registration attempts is a subjective term, and I think that it is difficult to prove that my registration attempts really did violate computer policy as I did not use a malicious attack, but just registered WAAAAAAAY more than anyone else.

How bad is a "warning" on my academic record when applying for med schools?

Also if my case gets sent up to the faculty disciplinary student committee and I'm found innocent does that mean that I'm free? Or is it considered still a stain? Would such activity be on my record?

thanks.

What policy did you violate? Is there no appeals process? Is this a state or private school?
 
I don't agree with everyone else here who is just laughing this off. Many people including college students were sent to federal prison for similar actions. None of those people thought they did anything wrong.

The linked cases are distinguishable. Even putting that aside, most computer crimes are specific intent crimes meaning that they require a mens era element (i.e. you must have malicious intent, not just committing the prohibited act itself). The perpetrators in the article had malicious intent in their crimes. The OP was simply trying to register for a class he needed for medical school.
 
Automated registration tool versus automated downloading tool. The only difference is that OPs university is much kinder and more reasonable than JSTOR.
This is a stretch. You're trying to draw an analogy between a program that pirated millions of dollars worth of intellectual property and a bot the OP wrote to refresh a webpage every 8 seconds. If OP was trying to DDoS the university you would have a point but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
Automated registration tool versus automated downloading tool. The only difference is that OPs university is much kinder and more reasonable than JSTOR.
You are not correct. The linked cases had obvious malicious intent and/or involved taking copyrighted material. There is no evidence that his program affected the system negatively at all, unintentionally I would add.
The only similar element is that they all used computers.
If you find a case of the FBI prosecuting a student for using a program to help register for classes I'll send you a crisp new Benjamin. This would exclude any cases where there was malicious intent btw. Deliberately crashing the system so nobody could register for example. The FBI may be big and inefficient, but their computer crimes division has actual crimes to investigate. They won't come after you if you accidentally spill your latte on the main server hub and short out the MIT system for a week either. MIT might expel you for stupidity, however cal tech might come along and give you a scholarship to poke their east coast rival in the eye. That's a pretty fantastical stretch of the imagination as well.
 
Downloading from an authorized account is not pirating. Pirating is downloading and then redistributing. Aaron Swartz was charged with damaging a computer network because the quantity of his downloads slowed the whole system, unauthorized computer access because the JSTOR ToS forbids automated downloading, etc.

Copyright does not preclude downloading, but redistribution. (If that was the case, we would all be breaking the law now because SDN is copyrighted and we have downloaded its pages in our web browser.) If you looked at the charges, you would see that he was not charged with copyright violations.

And especially if you are talking about mens rea, look at these cases:
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/21/montreal-comp-sci-student-repo.html
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060510/1343242.shtml

There was absolutely no malicious intent in any of the three.

Computing law is still in rapid flux and this leaves some huge grey areas. 95% of people who do stuff like the OP get a slap on the wrist, but the other 5% get hit hard.


Those are Canadian cases; my comments were based on U.S. federal law. I was assuming that we were discussing U.S. law here; is my assumption incorrect?
 
I don't agree with everyone else here who is just laughing this off. Many people including college students were sent to federal prison for similar actions. None of those people thought they did anything wrong.

It seems that you have some programming prowess. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility. ABET accreditation for a Bachelor's program in computer science requires an ethics course, and they require it for a reason. Don't do stupid things just because you can.

I think you're really lucky to be offered this deal. But it's probably best to consult with a lawyer. You want to make sure that the university doesn't screw you over with some obscure legalese in whatever document they have you sign.

First three are DDoS attack, which is illegal. An auto clicker (or some other automation) on an 8 second repeat does not constitute a denial of service. He didn't bring the server down (at least it shouldn't, unless the school is running on dial-up).

EDIT: Aaron Swartz was charged with hacking only because the damage to MIT's system, and we're not talking about that scale in this situation.

You are blowing this way out of proportion.
 
Last edited:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030:

(a) Whoever—

(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 👎 [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or

(C) information from any protected computer;

(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;

(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;

(5)

(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or

(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;

(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—

(A) threat to cause damage to a protected computer;

(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or

(C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion.

Edited to add: There are state analogs, but all contain comparable language to my knowledge.
 
Anyway, I agree with you all that the OP was never very likely to be charged with a crime, and I don't think the OP deserved to be charged with a crime, but the fact remains that he could have been charged with a crime. Charged and acquitted maybe. Who knows? But my point is don't play with fire.

I mean, Massachusetts state law still list adultery as punishable by up to three years in jail and $500 fine, yet I don't really think it has stopped any affairs in MA.
 
Last edited:
Yes, well OP did access the network knowingly. He didn't just slip and hit a button on his keyboard. Intent to defraud I don't think any of us are qualified to say whether that applies here. Anyway, maybe I jumped the gun and OPs act wasn't as serious as I made it out to be.

How does his conduct fit into any of those? He simply created a bot to refresh a webpage and obtain an empty seat in a course or am I missing something? He didn't illicitly access a protected computer, there was no damage, and nothing nefarious.

Edit: Fraud involves a material misrepresentation of fact or obtaining something under false pretenses. You cannot make out a prima facie case much less prove guilt of all the requisite elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, criminal statutes are construed in favor of the defendant should any ambiguity arise in accordance with the Rule of Lenity.
 
Last edited:
Downloading from an authorized account is not pirating. Pirating is downloading and then redistributing. Aaron Swartz was charged with damaging a computer network because the quantity of his downloads slowed the whole system, unauthorized computer access because the JSTOR ToS forbids automated downloading, etc.



Copyright does not preclude downloading, but redistribution. (If that was the case, we would all be breaking the law now because SDN is copyrighted and we have downloaded its pages in our web browser.) If you looked at the charges, you would see that he was not charged with copyright violations.
Right, but I was trying to point out the difference in intent, not prosecution (I think it's safe to say Swartz didn't download 80% of JSTOR for pleasure reading :laugh:). Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Anyway, carry on. @sportsdoc7, I still want to know how many attempts your bot made.
 
I mean, Massachusetts state law still list adultery as punishable by up to three years in jail and $500 fine, yet I don't really think it has stopped any affairs in MA.
Wouldn't it be interesting to hear the discussion of an applicant who had to report that conviction on his (or her) application!

Euxox can't seem to distinguish between fulminant pulmonary TB and the common cold.
 
They will pull out the log files for your registration.

Show how you did thousands of hits per second which raised red flags and initiated a response to DDOS.

At best you thought you wrote a sexy bot to do it for you and are a n00b.
At worst you think h4x0ring is "kewl" and you were going to DDOS their system so that nobody could login (for the lulz) and you got caught.

Denial of Service is a big deal these days. Better apply somewhere else, and this time just maybe leave the automation out of it.
 
I did this as an engineering undergrad and it was not a big deal, not sure why they care unless you are overloading the system as Shjanzey is saying, but to get to what Shjanzey is hinting at you'd have to be doing this from hundreds if not thousands of computers. They seem to be over the top on this one, IMO.
 
Top