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