If a Hermetic Trial is a presentation of facts, and a conviction is based on the votes of the Tribunal, then the voters of the Tribunal are interpreting that the case is a crime or not a crime. Interpretation of the Code happens before voting. And sure, it's subject to public image, I didn't say it wasn't.
I said there were two parts of the clause. It is certainly a violation of using magic to peer into the affairs of a magus's peers. This is a case that would extend the definition of scrying, as it certainly isn't using magic to peer into the affairs of a magus.
Technically if you collect your ACs from one place associated with a certain point in time (say dining hall after lunch) then testing an AC checks the activities of that magus as to having been present in that time and place...
It seems to me that the real point here is that every time I address one "issue" you raise you just bring up another- you don't want it to be a crime, you don't want your character punished- which this being a hypothetical trial they aren't... and because you have made this personal to your character you are going to argue that you got away with it regardless. I'm not saying you can't possibly get away with it, simply that it is more difficult than standing up and declaring yourself vindicated or expecting everyone else to be incompetent or uninterested.
Please, I'm doing the same issue, over and over: testing an AC is not a scrying, and therefore not a violation of the Code. I am responding to your issues or asking you to follow the OP and make a case.
Say what? Testing an AC doesn't check the activities of the person or place whatsoever. The Limit of Time doesn't allow you to go back in time and see who was there. Going a step further, testing an AC to a place doesn't actually tell you anything about who is at that place, which is another point that it isn't actually scrying. You can use the AC to the place to scry, but knowing there the place is doesn't scry.
It would tell you who was there the same way modern forensics would tell you who was there- an arcane connection is as much an identifier in AM as DNA is in the modern world. People do use reason along with magic...
The point is, there is nothing in the Code that makes gathering an arcane connection to another magus a crime. You might use it to scry on that magus, but you haven't done so. The Code does not prohibit you from casting spell at another magus. It only prohibits scrying and peering into their affairs using magic.
Furthermore, casting a spell at an arcane connection is not scrying upon that magus by itself. It would be scrying if you were to cast a spell using the arcane connection to see or hear (or listen to his thoughts) what that magus is currently doing. Or to locate him.
But saying that casting a spell at an object in order to determine to whom it is an a arcane connection to, that is stretching the definition of scrying by quite a bit. So much so that using the same leeway on the definition would expose a magus to charges of scrying for casting any spell at another, simply because that allows them to determine how strong their Parma is depending on whether it penetrated or not.
So basically, the magus' activity of going through a pile of hair from the hall does not in itself constitutes scrying. As another poster mentionned, it is very bad form and shows that he does not respect his hosts. But it is not a crime.
Having said that, if a complaint to the Quaesitores was to be lodged against him, that would certainly raise suspicion about him. Should actual charges of scrying be later brought against him, it would certainly work in his disfavour. But in the meantime, it would simply mean that few covenant would be willing to invite him into their walls as a guest.
EDIT: Now, if you want to make it against the Code to gather an arcane connection to another magus, you can insert a Peripheral Ruling in your saga that says so (probably as a Low Crime).
By it, I'm presuming you mean a spell that would allow you to view what is happening at the location. A spell that would only tell you where the location is (say on a map) doesn't tell you anything about what is going on at that current location. To cast a spell using the AC to view what is at that place is not at all the same as casting a spell to determine the location of that place; the only information provided by the second spell is that location.
No, I'm saying that:
We know this hair was dropped at this location at this time
we cast an Inco with arcane connection range (which BTW, is being cast on the mage, not the AC), and determined that the hair belonged to one Philosophus ex Miscelania
therefore we can conclude that Philosophus Ex Miscelanis was at the given location at the given time.
That is an AC to a person, not a place or location.
What? You're not even looking at the example spell that determines whether the AC is a target to a human or human like creature. It is not cast at R:Arc, and it does not affect the individual in anyway, and it is specifically stated as to not need to penetrate Magic Resistance. The InCo spell with R:Arc you describe doesn't actually tell you if it belongs to any particular individual unless you scry, and happen to overhear his name.
If the dining hall is swept before lunch, and you collect the hair from the dining hall after lunch, then you know it was dropped in the dining hall during lunch. If you can't follow that logic then you do not have the intelligence to be a mage.
You seem more interested in delivering insults than in discussing anything, and this has no spread to at least 4 threads. You fail to understand the errors in your arguments that I and others have pointed out. You (purposely) misconstrue my words as acceding to your points, and claim that I keep changing my points. I'm out.
Questions of fact regarding what actually happened would be determined by the quaesitores, and the scrying that would occur to determine the facts on the ground would be covered under forfeit immunity.
I am certainly going to have this be an issue in the next tribunal I run.
As someone who believes that testing items to see if it is an arcane connection to magi counts as scrying...Consider someone who was trying to discover the password to your email account and created a script to do so by randomly trying different passwords. Is knowing your password in and of itself a violation of your privacy or does he actually have to open an email and read a message to violate that privacy?
Suppose someone made the defense, "I didn't want to find out anything about that person, I was just trying to find out something regarding their email account!" Would you accept that as a defense, or would you consider what passwords someone has information about them?
Now, that is an argument that uses modern terms, and if we were more familiar with Plationic forms and how arcane connections relate to the things that form them, we would argue our points more directly. Practically, our characters are more expert in these nuances than we are.
On a related note, to what extent can "illegal scrying" be used as a counterclaim to allegations of Hermetic misfeasance?
For example, say Covenant A brings a charge before the Tribunal saying that Covenant B has a book in violation of that book's Cow and Calf Oath.
Can Covenant B's response be something like, "you don't know that we broke the oath in acquiring the book, and the only reason you know we have it is by illegal scrying"?
This is something I have noticed- in roleplaying a lot of times people use the "you can't know x" defense, regardless of the setting, and it never happens in real legal cases. Why? For one if you actually didn't do it "I didn't do X" is a much stronger statement than "You can't know I did x", and saying "you can't know I did x" is likely to be taken as an admission of guilt. And it's hard to both claim innocence and that the knowledge of the crime was gained through illegal means at the same time. You kind of have to pick which way you want to argue the case, and most will opt for playing innocent.
Read for your general question HoH:TL p.45ff Forfeit Immunity, and for your specific example Covenants p.95 and TME p.104f.
In brief: as long as A's scrying uncovered a violation of the Code and was proportional to that offense, B had forfeited the protection of the Code against A's scrying.
But if e. g. A scryed whole-sale on everything done in B, to come up after a week of that with a minor violation of a single magus in B, that would not be proportional, and set up A's magi for very valid counterclaims by the magi from B. It depends on the Tribunal and the very specific circumstances, whether violation of the Cow and Calf Oath in particular is an Hermetic crime at all.
First, if using the Cr(In)Im spell to create an image of the person the AC belongs to, this will be very much visible by anyone happening upon the scene.
So, knowing what the magus is doing is very much possible, even if the person stumbling upon him is not a magus or an apprentice, able to guess the Technique and Form used.
Now, I can very well see the defense using JL's arguments.
Technically speaking, it seems to me he is right in that this is not a crime. Magi may be uncomfortable with the magus actions, but still agree to this.
If the case goes to the tribunal, magi could still vote that this is a low crime (making a provision to the peripheral code), or, for the more "wild" tribunals, not.
This is interesting, because this changes the nature of the case, and is a tactic I can see the accusers use.
We had "He used magic to know the AC's origins" to "He used magic to know if Magus A was there, then". Just like CSI using DNA evidence to know if someone was present at a crime scene.
This, IMO, make the case fall under the "using magic to peer into another magus affairs", and thus much more likely to go to tribunal and be convicted. However, he wouldn't be convicted for determining the AC's origin, but for ascertaining Magus A's presence at the dining hall.
The definition of scrying is rather broad. Any use of magic to learn about the afairs, secrets, research, or any other important detail of another magi qualifies. Disguising oneself, using intellego to enhance your senses and the like all counts. Nor does it need to be targeted against the magus himself. Targeting his grogs would also be illegal. Indeed on the very next page "Questioning using Aura of Rightful Authority does count as scrying." ANY magic to gather ANY information pertaining to a magi. Thus to this case
I would say its scrying. If something is an arcane connection, and who it is to is an awfully important detail. It becomes trivial to murder someone when you have a connection. I fail to see how magi of the Order would be remotely okay with this. This is liable to result in a March. Furthermore it reveals a number of tertiary facts about the magi's affairs. Most notably it confirms if they are or are not shedding arcane connections. I can think of numerous ways that could be prevented, and this tells you if that is the case. It determines location in a CSI manner. It reveals their essential nature.
Furthermore gathering arcane connections and preserving them (keeping them from becoming a connection to some other thing) might be considered an attack outright. Much as if you punched a hole through a magus's defenses.
This is certainly a crime for revealing various facts about the victim. (Protections, location, essential nature). The arcane connection could be considered a crime. Keeping arcane connections intact could be considered a crime. Tribunals do weird things sometimes, but I think the normal response would be a conviction. Magi won't be happy about his guy.
Crimes are not protected from scrying. Which means the scrying is not illegal. Quaesitors generally are granted protection from scrying for legit investigations, so long as they do not reveal irrelevant facts. Other magi may be able to get the same protections. If you are investigating a magus for murder, and have a sufficiently good reason scrying will probably be excuse even if it turns out he is innocent. However, if you also found out he eats babies (who don't belong to another magi and in a non-diabolism way) that would not be revealable, even if the magus was the murderer.
In the case of the Oath of Calf and Cow its untested in most tribunals. If the book copiers are found innocent the scriers are in trouble! Their only defense is that the book copy was a crime. (Or that they are you know-innocent.)
I wouldn't think that was the case. If someone confesses to crime (or dishonesty) you can point out that a) you didn't do it and b) those guys just admitted to being dishonest. Why would you trust them?!? Also such an argument IS used a lot in the legal system. It can get evidence tossed out of court.
The eating babies could be revealed. Sorry, but that does endanger the order as a whole. "WIZARDS EAT BABIES" is NOT what we want town criers to be bellowing out.
If you know that evidence was collected in an illegal manner it can be thrown out, but that was not what was asked. What was asked was whether the accusation itself could be simply reversed on the claim that the evidence must have been illegally obtained because "you can't know that".
"You can't know that" is simply a bad argument, because if you are using it obviously they do, and if they didn't, you just confirmed what they didn't know.
You wouldn't say "YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT!". You would ask for evidence, or barring that how they came to know about the supposed violation. If they admit to collecting evidence illegally you accuse them of being a criminal and a liar. They are an admitted criminal, your not. Who you gonna trust? Hell, you can use their admittance of being a criminal to debunk any evidence that IS found as a fabrication.
If they fabricate how they gained their knowledge/evidence you debunk that, prove them a liar, and dismiss their claim that way.
Finally you would ask they be prosecuted. Yes, saying "you can't know that" is a bad argument because it implies a confession. (It is impossible to know something that is untrue, so its not actually admitting anything.) But you CAN use the fact that they gained knowledge illegally to undermine their statements, and reverse the accusation.