"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 14-Sep-08 16:50, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...

> > 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?

> 1) if the branch is weak enough there is no danger, so no need to call
> 2) as you failed to notice, I never said he entered the property. You
> (and my fictional character) assume that he did, just as the assumption
> in our case here is that the student was doing something malicious. (yes
> I come to that later)

But he did hack into the system and retrieve the passwords. If he didn't
enter the property, your analogy doesn't compute. If he did, then he did
violate the property rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

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

> > What do you call breaking the law?

> The student had apparently no intention to cause harm to the system or

So if I go over the speed limit but have no intention to get into an
accident, I can expect to avoid a ticket?

> gain himself or anybody else anything by the act. The only reason you
> may call him a criminal is that there is a law there that should have
> been different.

You can argue that the law is unfair (it would be a bad argument, granted,
but laws are of course not set in stone). But so long as it's there, it's by
definition, a crime to break it.

> As a student you may excuse him for not yet knowing that
> some laws don't make sense and can be used in perverse ways.

Ignorance of the law is (almost always) unacceptable as a defense. Too much
room for abuse.

> Aside: I don't know about your place, but here we consider somebody
> innocent until proven to have broken the law.

True, but I'm not the judge or the jury, nor are we sentencing him here. I
can express my opinion based on what I have read so far.

> BTW I consider this discussion closed as far as I am concerned. I feel
> very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of
> 'x### [at] ycom'.

That's an ad hominem. Somebody (else) might claim he doesn't feel
comfortable with people with hotmail accounts. Nonetheless, be it so.

Post a reply to this message

>
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

Seems to me like he installed some keyloggers and card readers and simply 
skimmed off log in information.  Then he actually admitted doing this to the 
university - very clever...

He should have sent the 16-page report to the university without actually 
performing the illegal acts or sending the document to 37 of his mates.  If 
they had refused to improve security, then he could have gone to the local 
student papers etc and kicked up a fuss.

Post a reply to this message

>  No, he spotted a technical security flaw in the computer system, and
> pointed it out so that it could be fixed,

But his mistake was to go several steps further, and actually "demonstrate" 
the security floor by installing keyloggers and magnetic card readers, then 
accessing 32 different student accounts illegally and sending his findings 
to 37 of his mates.  Had he just written the document and sent it to the 
university, fine.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Sep-08 4:14, somebody wrote:
> 
>> BTW I consider this discussion closed as far as I am concerned. I feel
>> very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of
>> 'x### [at] ycom'.
> 
> That's an ad hominem. 

- no, that was the point it is an ad inhominem
- it is also not one because I tell you what I feel, without even 
suggesting that what you did would make your points less valuable.
- over the years there were a few cases of people here in the newsgroups 
that, like you, tried to discredit other people by accusing them of 
rhetoric tricks. It is my impression that that said more about 
themselves than of the addressed person. Just an observation.

> Somebody (else) might claim he doesn't feel
> comfortable with people with hotmail accounts. 

Not the best attempt to return a compliment that I have seen. FYI I use 
a hotmail account in newsgroups for obvious reasons. I am not hiding 
behind a fictitious address. I will answer e-mails sent to that address 
and it reflects even my name IRL.

> Nonetheless, be it so.

It is your choice. I think of this group as a group of (mostly) friends. 
Your choice sort of spoils that idea for me. Many people here use 
aliases and many use e-mail addresses that are either invalid or 
mangled. Yet, because they have a recognizable identity I can think of 
them as a human being. To me you're more a ghost than a human being. So 
again, it is absolutely your own choice on whether you want to be part 
of this group or not, but I (and perhaps others) might not respond to 
anything you say. (Obviously, I make an exception for this metadicussion.)

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...

> FYI I use
> a hotmail account in newsgroups for obvious reasons. I am not hiding
> behind a fictitious address.

What would the purpose of a legitimate (or legitimate looking) e-mail
address be if I don't wish to receive any e-mails?

> I will answer e-mails sent to that address
> and it reflects even my name IRL.

I don't care, so long as there aren't two "andrel"s to confuse. Avoiding
confusion to me is the only reason d'etre of a name or a handle.

> It is your choice. I think of this group as a group of (mostly) friends.
> Your choice sort of spoils that idea for me. Many people here use
> aliases and many use e-mail addresses that are either invalid or
> mangled. Yet, because they have a recognizable identity I can think of
> them as a human being. To me you're more a ghost than a human being.

I'm well aware that had I called myself "Sebastian", "Zippy", or even "mtu",
I would automatically command more respect. It's quite interesting, really.

> So
> again, it is absolutely your own choice on whether you want to be part
> of this group or not, but I (and perhaps others) might not respond to
> anything you say. (Obviously, I make an exception for this metadicussion.)

I prefer to discuss and challenge ideas, rather than get on a personal
level. To that end, a reduced audience is not a big problem.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Sep-08 22:43, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
> 
>> FYI I use
>> a hotmail account in newsgroups for obvious reasons. I am not hiding
>> behind a fictitious address.
> 
> What would the purpose of a legitimate (or legitimate looking) e-mail
> address be if I don't wish to receive any e-mails?

none at all.

> 
>> I will answer e-mails sent to that address
>> and it reflects even my name IRL.
> 
> I don't care, so long as there aren't two "andrel"s to confuse. Avoiding
> confusion to me is the only reason d'etre of a name or a handle.

It may be something more than that. If you know that I am a real person 
with a real background (and not a group or a 15 yo pretending to be 
someone else) it may indicate that what I write is probably sincere and 
that I am not trolling.

>> It is your choice. I think of this group as a group of (mostly) friends.
>> Your choice sort of spoils that idea for me. Many people here use
>> aliases and many use e-mail addresses that are either invalid or
>> mangled. Yet, because they have a recognizable identity I can think of
>> them as a human being. To me you're more a ghost than a human being.
> 
> I'm well aware that had I called myself "Sebastian", "Zippy", or even "mtu",
> I would automatically command more respect. It's quite interesting, really.

I know, I find that interesting too. One of the factors seems to be that 
'somebody' invokes not the image of a specific person, but of one that 
deliberately hides everything personal. We all hide things, but 
'somebody' is advertising to want only to take and does not intend to 
share. You could have called yourself 'antisocial' of 'psychopath' but 
even that would not have the same effect as nobody would take that 
serious. Even 'nobody' would be different as we can take that as a 
reference that you at least know your classics. I can only assume that 
you chose this alias to get a certain effect. Well congratulations, you 
achieved your goal.

>> So
>> again, it is absolutely your own choice on whether you want to be part
>> of this group or not, but I (and perhaps others) might not respond to
>> anything you say. (Obviously, I make an exception for this metadicussion.)
> 
> I prefer to discuss and challenge ideas, rather than get on a personal
> level. To that end, a reduced audience is not a big problem.

Let's hope that makes sense to you.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  No, he spotted a technical security flaw in the computer system, and
> > pointed it out so that it could be fixed,

> But his mistake was to go several steps further, and actually "demonstrate" 
> the security floor by installing keyloggers and magnetic card readers, then 
> accessing 32 different student accounts illegally and sending his findings 
> to 37 of his mates.  Had he just written the document and sent it to the 
> university, fine.

  Yes, that caused tons of expensive damage, so he must be punished. That
will teach him to never tell about his hacking again. Next time he will
just hack and don't tell anyone. That way everybody will be happy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48cd392c@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>> > You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If you
>> > read your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the
>> > rest of the day.
> 
>> o_O
>>
>> Are you seriously
> 
> Well, you answered your own question there, didn't you?
> 
>> suggesting I should read my email in the middle of the
>> night just in case somebody mailed me with my financial information?

Huh?!

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48cef56a@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> >> somebody wrote:

> >> > You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If
you
> >> > read your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the
> >> > rest of the day.

> >> o_O
> >>
> >> Are you seriously

> > Well, you answered your own question there, didn't you?

> Huh?!

I was of course not serious. Can one not indulge in non-emoticonated levity
any more?

Post a reply to this message

>> But his mistake was to go several steps further, and actually 
>> "demonstrate"
>> the security floor by installing keyloggers and magnetic card readers, 
>> then
>> accessing 32 different student accounts illegally and sending his 
>> findings
>> to 37 of his mates.  Had he just written the document and sent it to the
>> university, fine.
>
>  Yes, that caused tons of expensive damage, so he must be punished.

Would you be happy if your details had been sent to 37 of his mates?  I 
guess those 32 students that had their data published had to go and change 
all their details, and the university had to go and check all their accounts 
with them to see if there was anything on their debit cards that shouldn't 
have been.  SO yes, I'm sure a lot of people are having to waste a lot of 
time now that they shouldn't have done, and yes he should be punished so 
that others don't do the same.

> That
> will teach him to never tell about his hacking again.

No, that will teach him to actually go ahead and carry out an illegal 
security hack on 32 students, rather than informing the authorities about 
it.  How on Earth can you say that installing a disguised magnetic card 
reader to skim cards does not deserve to be punished?

Post a reply to this message