"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 14-Sep-08 5:43, John VanSickle wrote:
> > Doctor John wrote:
> >>
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1

> > It is not substantively different from a situation where you live in an
> > apartment for which the landlord has failed to install adequate door
> > locks.  You cannot break into other people's apartments in order to
> > demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing security.  You tell the
> > landlord, advise the tenants, and if nothing happens, move out.

> It is the same sort of wrong comparison that 'somebody' made. The
> difference is that this vulnerability is known and hacking a system
> often involves a new exploit that is unknown to the owners. A better
> comparison might be a house owner with a large fence around his house
> with spikes on top. One day a guy walks up to him and says: 'You know
> that large tree on your property, that has very long branches reaching
> over the fence. I was walking past that and though it might be a easy
> access to your property. I tried the largest low hanging branch and
> indeed it could easily support me.' After which the house owner calls
> the cops and have him arrested for breaking into his property.

Good for him. I'd call the cops too. What's it his business entering my
property? "I was walking by" doesn't make sense either. Nobody walking by
"accidentally" climbs a tree. And if he was really concerned for my safety,
why not come point out to me the branch *without* violating the law?

That it was easy to do or that the owner failed to perfectly secure
something is not an excuse for breaking the law. Where do you draw the line?
If the guy had to use a ladder to get to a branch, would you then willing to
consider it a crime? If the guy had to use a helicopter to land on the tree
or the property, would you consider that a crime now? See, there are always
ways to compromise a property or a system if you have a criminal mind.
Unless the suspect can show that he went into the property by mistake during
his daily walk, and if the property owner did not draw a line around his
property, then I'd let him go. Otherwise, if he's made an effort to climb a
tree, use a ladder, use a helicopter... etc, it's clear what he intended to
break the law, clear and simple.

> > Consider for a moment the results of allowing people to hack first, and
> > then report the results of their hacking.  People who are hacking for
> > criminal reasons will, if caught, claim that as a defense.

> Not necessary, the guy in question apparently had no criminal intentions

What do you call breaking the law?

> I can understand your position, but I also know that there is a large
> group of systems that is not adequately protected. If the system will be
> hacked mostly third persons will suffer the consequences. Protecting the
> sysops with a law that prohibits hacking will increase the problem.

False dichotomy again. Why do you assume that the system will be hacked by a
third person? It's a matter of opportunity, means and motive, and not all
are present for anyone on the street. Clairvoyance defenses like that don't
work, and with good reason. If you see someone speeding down the street, are
you given a free pass to ram him? After all, he's going to get into an
accident, right? And it's better that at least the other side anticipates
the accident...

Post a reply to this message