|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sasser worm author gets slap on wrist
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 07-11-2005 10:19 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
It doesn't matter if some lady walks past you wearing nothing but a G-string and high heels. If she says "no" and you jump her anyway you committed rape and you need to be put away forever.
If you rape a prostitute in a red-light area after you solicited his or her services, but who decided (s)he didn't want to go through with it at the last moment, you'll receive a lesser sentence than if you snorted a load of crack cocaine, broke into a convent and raped an 80-year old nun. Likewise, if you're caught drink-driving but did not cause any accident or hurt anyone, you'll receive a lesser sentence than if you were arrested after your car ploughed into a pavement and killed five people. In other words, the law recognises differing degrees of blame according to the circumstances of the offence. The sentence is supposed to reflect a combination of how 'badly' the offender has offended and the impact of that offence on its victim(s).
In this case there's a mismatch between the badness and the impact. This was a kid who clearly didn't think through the consequences of his actions (some would argue - though not me - that he wasn't as able to do so as an adult would be) and probably didn't intend to cause the amount of damage he did. But on the other hand, this virus did cause a lot of economic damage. And as Bobby points out, hospitals, traffic control systems and the like are now run by Windows PCs, and the consequences of them being infected could be very serious. And I certainly agree with everyone here that the owners or operators of infected systems failing to take steps to keep malware out is absolutely not a mitigating factor in determining the sentence for someone who creates and/or deliberately distributes that malware.
Personally I'd say that the most appropriate sentence would be a lifetime order banning him from touching any equipment which is connected to the Internet. That would enable him to choose a new career and move on, while protecting the public from his obvious personality flaws.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-12-2005 05:18 AM
quote: Oscar Neundorfer
By that analogy, if I don't have the latest high-tech locks and security system on my house, and I get broken into and my house gets destroyed, then I got exactly what I deserve.
Oh yeah, the victim is responsible. Right. Sure. Unbelievable.
i think in this instance, and in general, one has to be careful about making analogies between the computer world and the "real" world. if you network your computer, that's tantamount to accepting the consequences of whatever comes down the pipeline. if you have a bug that can be exploited to compromise your system, that is equivalent to an invitation in a sense. not in the sense that that is what you want, or that you're "asking for it", of course, but those notions just don't have much purchase in the computer world. i suppose the law says different, i don't know.
why would a hospital or air traffic control or whatever critical system not be isolated from the internet? why would the microsoft patch not be implemented super-fast on these systems as a matter of course? they should have been.
okay, feel free to refute. just feeling these things out a bit. i do think this scenario is distinct from rape and burglary.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar Neundorfer
Master Film Handler
Posts: 275
From: Senoia, GA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 07-12-2005 07:22 AM
quote: Carl Martin
if you network your computer, that's tantamount to accepting the consequences of whatever comes down the pipeline. if you have a bug that can be exploited to compromise your system, that is equivalent to an invitation in a sense. not in the sense that that is what you want, or that you're "asking for it", of course
Well, I can't agree that connecting to the internet is tantamount to "accepting" the consequences. Yes, I realize there are risks involved, but the risks come from people with no moral character who see nothing wrong with taking from others in terms of time, money, and other property. Regardless of the law, if someone does that to anyone else, it is wrong.
If the temptation to commit a crime, destroy property (whether real or intellectual), or cause whatever damage one can do, is to be considered an invitation, then there are plenty of "invitations" out there in ALL forms, whether in the computer world or the real world. That does NOT mean that I issued the "invitation".
When I was a child in the 1950's, we rarely locked the doors on our house. On many occasions during the summer here in the hot South, with no air conditioning, we slept with the doors open. We did not have to worry then as we would now because the moral character of people in general was far better. Sure, there were people who would do wrong things, but not nearly to the extent there is now. Now, I always make sure ALL my locks are locked and the security system is on. I try hard to keep my family and property safe from the scumbags out there.
As to my analogy, both my computer(and its data) and my house are my property. The public internet is the path to my computer just as the public road system is the path to my house. Both my computer and my house are moderately secure but not impenetrable. Both have security vulnerabilities that could be exploited. Criminals could make efforts to break and enter either my computer or my house, and once in, cause damage in some form. There is the potential to lose something valuable that I have worked hard for due to this criminal activity.
Today, there is little respect on the part of many people for the property rights of others. Not to get political, but even our Supreme Court recently made a major ruling against legitimate individual property rights. Kids, which make up a good many of the virus writers out there if I am informed correctly, are especially inconsiderate of property rights, as evidenced by the number of kids making attacks on computer systems.
The bottom line is this: if someone breaks into my computer and destroys my work, wastes my time and money, and causes me much grief, that person is to blame, not me. I did not deserve it, I did not ask for it, and in my opinion they should be held to at least as high a degree of responsibility and as great a punishment as anyone breaking into my house and doing similar damage.
quote: Dominic Espinosa
yes the kid with the matches is a vandal but the idiot who didn't close the door is also at fault.
Once again, the victim is somehow responsible. I submit that your so called "idiot" should be able to leave the door wide open 24/7 and not have to worry about such things. It is ENTIRELY the fault of the vandal. Yes, I know this is the real world, but if it weren't for the vandals, we could do exactly as I suggested.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-12-2005 11:13 AM
quote: Carl Martin
i think in this instance, and in general, one has to be careful about making analogies between the computer world and the "real" world.
If you have your "real" money and "real" identity getting stolen via some criminal using a computer, the "real" world analogies definitely apply 100%. The hacker should have his real world butt thrown into the clink. Perhaps after a few years of getting his poo pushed in by a few thugs he might think twice about screwing with the lives of ordinary people.
Lots of computer hackers wrongly think they're providing some kind of Robin Hood style service for the world. Our perverted popular culture, of course, eats up that crap since they love all sorts of negative anti-heroes. But hackers aren't hurting anyone other than regular people. They may think they're sticking it to Microsoft when in reality they're making companies like Microsoft lots more money. Big corporations don't get hurt at all by this stuff. Those vandalistic bastards need to wake up and realize that sore truth.
quote: Carl Martin
if you have a bug that can be exploited to compromise your system, that is equivalent to an invitation in a sense.
Again, I completely disagree with that. And I think another real world analogy would be appropriate. If you walk through a neighborhood and notice the front door ajar on a house, that gives you absolutely no right at all to enter. If you choose to enter anway, you can be charged for breaking and entering.
The same rules should apply on computer crime. Just because you see an open door into a network that doesn't give you any right to enter it.
I'm sure some fellow Film-Tech members have seen this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/wi.fi.theft.ap/
quote:
ST. PETERSBURG, Florida (AP) -- Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.
Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.
Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.
The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith's arrest this week.
Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common. But experts say that illegal use often goes undetected, such as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats.
Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or even know how to do so.
Wi-Fi, short for Wireless Fidelity, has enjoyed prolific growth since 2000. Millions of households have set up wireless home networks that allow people to use the Web from their backyards but also reach the house next door or down the street.
Prosecutors declined to comment, and a working phone number could not be located for Smith.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Wardriving into private home networks, even if you're just using it to jump onto the Internet for free is illegal. I have lots of criticism for people who leave their home Wi-Fi hotspots unsecured. They open themselves up to all sorts of trouble. But they're still not the ones committing the crime. The people choosing to enter are the only ones breaking the law.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic