Hacked systems and the law

[Jonathan Hutchins]

Quoting Bradley Miller <bradmiller at dslonramp.com>: 
 
> 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.   
 
You are grossly exagerating the effect they had on your system.  It's not 
breaking, it's not theft, the system still does it's job just fine, and it was 
OPEN TO HACKING ALL ALONG because the ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO ADEQUATELY 
SECURE IT.  If there were a REAL loss of any significance to your clients, YOU 
would likely face more serious consequences than the hacker, as YOU could be 
sued for neglegence. 
 
So be carefull about throwing legal claims around, eh?  Calm down, learn your 
lesson, and get off the kick of finding someone to blame and bother.  Take 
your lumps and move on. 
 
> Now why is it people are more worked up over spam than "intruders"? 
 
Becasue spam causes real losses and damage, and affects all of us every day, 
while one inadequately secured system getting 'owned' is pretty dull stuff. 

---------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through tarcanfel's horde/imp system