Hacked systems and the law

[Bradley Miller]

>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.

Ok -- then we should all sue anyone for putting out flawed systems in the
first place.  Who was the brain child that decided telnet should be
included on any system unless it was secure?  The administrator had all the
patches and other goodies on the box.  So the first time someone hacks your
system -- it's all YOUR fault?   Oh my.

>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.

Not if there isn't anything in their contract about damages from that.

>
>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.

There is no one to blame, there is someone to punish.  Yep, if I leave the
keys in the ignition and the door unlocked -- my fault.  That wasn't the
case here.

>
> > 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.

Ok -- so you can quantify the real loss from getting spam?  So your users
have to use the delete key?  How can you count spam deleting time as a
loss, but the time that it takes to clean up this fiasco on my part isn't a
loss?

Alright Don Quixote  . . . you better take a running shot at this one . . .

-- Bradley Miller