"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48cbc7b9@news.povray.org...
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> >
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1

> > Can't make my mind up on this; is the university right in prosecuting or
> > are they overreacting to cover their own insecure *ssh*les?
> > Right now I'm leaning in the direction of overreacting but I'm willing
> > to be convinced otherwise

>   No good deed goes unpunished. (Although this is certainly not the worst
> case of someone reporting security weaknesses to some company and getting
> sued for it.)

And one more thing to say on the subject: Why is it that people think the
ease by which one can commit a cybercrime justifies it? That doesn't work
like that in real life. Nobody gives the excuse "Well officer, sure I was
doing 200 mph, but see, that's a security flaw in the system. The car or the
road should not allow me to depress that lever that hard". It's ridiculously
easy in real life to commit crimes. Pretty much *everything* is insecure. I
would walk with thousands of dollars worth of goods just strolling around a
market or a mall with open displays. No shop owner is required to keep their
wares under lock in all times in order to be able to charge a thief. It's
understood that it's their goods, they own it. Well, university records are
property of the institution, I don't think the hacker could possibly be
confused on that matter. And it's not like the hacker accidentally came
across them in his browsing, he had a clear intent to break in and worked at
it.

Post a reply to this message