Hacked systems and the law
Bradley Miller
bradmiller at dslonramp.com
Mon Apr 21 13:00:48 CDT 2003
At 08:18 AM 4/21/2003 -0500, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
>We've been speculating a lot here about the legal distinctions when a system
>is hacked but nothing harmful is done.
They installed a tool kit that took a functional box and made it a
compromised system -- albeit one that still works . . . it's still not the
same system that was there before they came in. That is breaking and
entering as well as vandalism, and theft all rolled into one. If someone
breaks into your car and rips out the dashboard wiring but doesn't steal
anything -- aren't they just as wrong? The day I have to put "DO NOT
TRESPASS" signs in my car is the day I adopt a double barrelled security
system, if you catch my drift.
If more "examples" of punishment were made perhaps there would be less
enthusiasm to compromise systems. Sometimes you have to come into these
things with a business owners perspective. This isn't a game, it isn't
remotely funny, and it isn't something that I will let go without a
fight. My bread and butter is made keeping sites up and going on the
Internet. In theory I shouldn't need to have double dead bolts and a
security system on my house / computers / etc... if the people wanting to
break in realized they'd have their a** in a jam if/when they are
caught. It doesn't keep them out, but once they are caught I'm going to do
everything possible to make sure that they at least are punished for their
actions then.
Now why is it people are more worked up over spam than "intruders"?
-- Bradley Miller
More information about the Kclug
mailing list