26 Jul
2001
26 Jul
'01
10:01 p.m.
Getting into YOUR computer is no different from getting into YOUR house. If
someone does that to you, don't you call the police regardless of whether they
steal your assets or just a bottle of beer? Do you think it's tolerable for
someone to gain entry to your house and watch your wife or daughter dress or
bathe? Do you think it's tolerable for someone to gain unlawful entry into your
puportedly private space and film you making love with your spouse/partner and
then share that with whomever he/she sees fit?
If you caught someone skulking about your house with all the necessary
arms/tools to do you harm, wouldn't you defend yourself? Don't you think you
have the right to presume that someone who pries into your personal space has
evil intent?
The problem with allowing people such "rights" is that the ones least likely to
consider the right and wrong of exercising them are the ones most likely do it.
It's the old business of worrying the question of whether he could without
considering at all whether he should.
Another problem, of course, lives within the obvious fact that he'll be defended
by others who also would if they could.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey S. Sharp" <jss(a)subatomix.com>
To: "Classic Computers Mailing List" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hackers: Computer Outlaws revisited
At first I thought this was spam, but then I saw
Clint's name on it...
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Clint Wolff (VAX collector) wrote:
How would YOU feel if someone broke into your computer system and took
YOUR files to do whatever he felt like with? Or hacked your voicemail
system and listened to your messages?
...
If your name, DOB, and SSN are ANYWHERE on your computer, a hacker can
steal your identity.
...
People who break into computers are criminals.
People who launch DDOS attacks are criminals.
Honestly, you're a little too paranoid. I think that there certainly is a
grey area in which lie the practices of 'breaking into' systems, launching
DDOS attacks, etc. Most activities like that probably ought to be illegal
in some way; in today's world, one cannot subscribe completely to the
belief that all (h|cr)ackers follow an ethic that forbids damage to
others. However, it is equally wrong to assume that all (h|cr)ackers will
do damage, that the damages are actually as high as have been assessed in
past cases, and that current computer crime laws are just.
The problem with people getting paranoid (e.g., fearing Mitnick could
start a nuclear holocaust from a payphone) is that it causes opressive law
to be generated. What we're seeing now is not only law that punishes (at
an unusual severity) the actual act of 'breaking in', but law (e.g., the
DMCA) which forbids one to know how to do so or even to *tell* others how
to do so. It scares me that there is any debate over the
constitutionality of such laws.
It's really weird. You can go to a number of sites and learn about the
Teller-Ulam Configuration and other aspects of how to build a hydrogen
bomb, but... finding out how to de-ROT13 your DVDs? Sorry buddy, that's
illegal.
Kevin Mitnick is a CONVICTED criminal, and has
ADMITTED criminal
behaviour. I don't get teary-eyed thinking about the time he spent in
prison before the trial. He was a proven flight risk (he ran away
once, and hid out in Denver).
Yeah, Kevin did some stupid stuff, and he should expect to be punished for
it. The problem here is that what he got was just a little (ok,
extremely) 'unconstitutional'.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)subatomix.com