ACK! -- CONTINUED

[James Sissel]

Even Forrest Gump knows it's not nice to go onto someone else's property
without permission.  It makes no difference if there are or are not "No
Trespassing" signs up.  Just the fact that "No Trespassing" signs exist
means people know that being on property that is not their own is wrong.

Therefore I don't care if I leave my doors wide open in my house I believe
it is wrong for my neighbors to start wandering through my house.  The fact
I must lock my doors is a sad commentary on the state of things.  I also
believe that if your Mommy didn't teach you *respect* (Oh, there's a word we
seldom hear anymore) for other people's property then the law should, prank
or not.

And blaming the victim because they didn't have a big enough lock on their
door isn't right.  Wrong is wrong and what the cracker did was wrong.  You
know it.  I know it.  The fact the cracker tried to cover their tracks shows
they know it.  Every effort should be made to find this person, "explain"
respect to them again, and give them an attitude adjustment.

That said, the punishment should fit the crime.  1000 hours of community
service painting over graffiti (at their expense) and a public apology for a
first time offender sounds reasonable.  Singapore might have something with
that public caning thing.  We should look into it.  If we find it's an adult
then even more severe measures should be taken.  Prank or not, they are
criminals and should be held accountable for their actions (another novel
idea in these times).

-----Original Message-----
From: James Colannino [mailto:email2jamez at covad.net]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:50 AM
To: kclug at kclug.org
Subject: Re: ACK! -- CONTINUED

I agree that it is just another form of breaking an entry.  Yes, you can 
leave the computer unharmed except for maybe a few harmless traces left 
behind as the hacker's signature, in this case, a simple defaced 
index.html that could easily be replaced.

But if you had a neighborhood kid that was always able to find a way 
inside your house, and he kept coming in behind your back and posting 
little notes that announced his presence, surely you would try and make 
sure it never happened again, including going to the police if necessary.

Now if someone ever did this to my computer, I would just go ah, you got 
me and leave it at that; I would simply take is as a learning 
experience.  I believe that this is what we should all do as it is 
nothing serious.  But, that doesn't make it right either, and the 
comparison with breaking an entry stands solid, in my humble opinion.

James

L. Adrian Griffis wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
>  
>
>>Quoting Kurt Kessler <kessler2k at yahoo.com>: 
>>    
>>
>>>Sorry, I dont agree with that. It is breaking and 
>>>entering. Sure its neat to explore and what not, but 
>>>this is not naive exploration. this is no different 
>>>that going into someones house, or place of business 
>>>without permission. Trespassing? maybe. But I can 
>>>press charges for trespassing... 
>>>      
>>>
>> 
>>To prosecute someone for trespass, you need to show that you either posted
the 
>>property clearly with "no trespass" signs of some sort, and/or that you
told 
>>the person to leave the property [..]
>>    
>>
>
>Actually breakig and entering make a good comparison.  A locked
>front door amounts to a statement of your intent not to have
>just anybody in your house.  You don't need to put a separate
>"No Trespassing" sign on your front door.  It doesn't matter that
>any 10 year old can probably be taugh to pick the lock on your
>front door.  Most people probably ought to consider more
>carefully just how inadequate such a lock typically is, and most
>people probably ought to learn that there are particular brands
>and models of such locks that are more secure;  But, none of that
>changes the fact that bypassing a locked door makes the offense
>more serious, because the fact that the door is locked is an
>indication of the owner's intent.
>
>Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>


This transmission (and any information attached to it) may be confidential and is intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended 
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the transmission to the intended recipient, be 
advised that you have received this transmission in error and that any use, dissemination, 
forwarding, printing, or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this transmission in error, please immediately notify LabOne at the following email address: 
securityincidentreporting at labone.com