[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Schwartz VS. Intel

In article <3u0ts8$8qr@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>
John Biggs <biggs@helix.cse.ogi.edu> wrote:

> 
> I find it interesting that the defense is going to portray
> the defendant as "a nice go who was hacking not cracking".

The primary difference between hacking and cracking seems to be intent. If I 
find the phone number for the federal reserves computer and make a couple of 
lame attempts to get in I'm hacking but if I make a serious, repetitive and 
concerted effort to get in am I cracking at that point? Once I get in while I 
am poking around looking for wire transfers of lots $$$ I accidentally alter, 
reroute or delete a bunch of transactions. Am I hacking or cracking, I am a 
nice guy, I have 12 year old daughter, we play softball, etc. and most 
importantly Judge, I really didn't mean to cause all of the problems and I'm 
really really sorry. What I am saying is that in some things it needs to be 
balck and white. If he did it then regardless of the "intent" of his 
indiscretion he should be punished. Just because he did't cause harm one time 
doesn't mean that he won't the next time.

> My opinion?  Im on Schwartz's side.

What happened to taking responsibilites for ones own actions? It is hard to 
argue that Schwartz accidentally sat down and accidentally called Intel's 
computers and accidentally broke in. If he did it he should be punsihed even 
if he is a nice guy who skis.

  I believe there is a limit
> as to how much our society should rely on computers.  You cant 
> stop hackers/crackers...

Here we start to agree, yes you can't stop people from breaking into computer 
systems but may be we can discourage the "hacker" from crossing over the legal 
line. If hackers are honest, industrious programmers that just got too 
involved to stop and I believe many are. Maybe, a few months in a minimum 
security country club would send a message that the potential downside is very 
real.
 
> Software security is created by humans,  and it can be broke by 
> humans.  That is a fact.

Yup, there is always someone that's smarter, or more industious, or with more 
resources, etc. 

  Court cases are definitely siding
> with the hackers.  That is a fact.

While I agree with you, this is a sad commentary on our legal system and it 
just encourages people to break the law. You can be assured that any jury that 
is selected for the Schwartz trial or any other computer crime trial will not 
have jury of peers or even a jury member that understand computer beyond the 
most elemental levels, i.e. on a good day, in a well lite room the person 
stands a 50/50 chance of finding the on/off switch once someone points the 
computer out to them. The syndrome of dumbing down jurys is very real in the 
US. Just look at the jurys selected in any high profile case or ask any of 
your peers when the last time that they were selected for a jury was.

  I think we have some 
> roads to travel before we are  anywhere near making me feel 
> "secure" with computer security.  

I couldn't agree with you more.


gary
-- 



+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Gary L. Scott (planning@teleport.com)    | Teleport, Inc.      |
|Marketing Director                       | Internet Service    |
|http://www.teleport.com                  ----------------------|
|Voice (503) 223-0076  Fax (503) 223-4372  System (503) 220-1016|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
References: