response 26 of 145:

Sep 27 16:28 UTC 2000

hacking is a felony only if it causes more than $1,000 in damage--
given the circumstances, and the fact mnet made its own decisions in
keeping mnet down as long as it was, it will be easy to say mnet
is exaggerating in claiming this cost them more than $1,000.  Tyhe
repairs could have been done cheaper and more expeditiously than they
were.  Mnet was also delayed in getting back up because the box was
out in Livonia and then mnet staff, due to the fact they are all
volunteers with lives, didnt have the time to get it up as quick as
possible.  Allof that is  not the kid's fault.  

Hacking that does not, repeat not, cause over $1,000 in damages is
not a felony according to this law.  Since they can make a case that
mnet exaggerates its damage claims, the kid is going to get off unless
his lawyer is an idiot.

response 28 of 145:

Sep 27 17:46 UTC 2000

I'm almost attempted to attend just to prove richard is talking out of his
ass, but no proof is required. :)  He's just being contentious and bitter,
methinks.

response 30 of 145:

Sep 27 19:23 UTC 2000

Re #19:
> The kid didn't actually break anything tangible (such as a window).
> If m-net had not been negligent in not making sure well known security
> flaws were not present (I am I think correctly assuming that the kid
> broke in via some method that was already well published at the time the
> event took place). 

--> So if someone picks the lock on your house and sleeps on your couch, it 
shouldn't be a crime because nothing was broken, and you should have known  
your locks were defeatable?

response 32 of 145:

Sep 27 21:15 UTC 2000

My understanding was, if you walking into somebody's house when their door
was unlocked (and you don't have reason to believe you're allowed there), it's
trespass, but if you pick a lock or otherwise foil obvious security measures,
it moves up to breaking and entering... that is, "breaking" entails something
other than opening an unlocked door.

But maybe that's just too many bad primetime detective shows, and trespass
is illegal anyway.

response 34 of 145:

Sep 27 23:53 UTC 2000

Brighn, I thought that the breaking had nothing to do with locks, but rather
the crossing of a threshold that wasn't there to cross, like going in an open
window is still considered Breaking...

response 36 of 145:

Sep 28 00:15 UTC 2000

my rules?  as if.  if i took my cue from grexers i'd have to invent
multi-syllabic curse words to describe you, carson :)  and in addition
i'd have to accuse you of a whole bunch of things you hadn't done. ;)

response 38 of 145:

Sep 28 01:38 UTC 2000

The common-law definition of burglary was "the breaking and entering
of a dwelling of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit
larceny or a felony therein."  If you walked through an open door,
it wasn't burglary (but lifting a latch would be "breaking").  If
it were daytime, it wasn't burglary.  If it were a barn, or bank, it
wasn't burglary.

Why this very restrictive definition?  Burglary was a capital crime.
Convicted burglars were hanged.

The common-law definition has been changed in every state to something
at least slightly more modern, i.e., it doesn't have to be nighttime,
it doesn't have to be a dwelling, etc., to be burglary.

response 40 of 145:

Sep 28 02:00 UTC 2000

If felony convictions weren't harsh, hard-up ex-cons would be raping you in
the street without fear of serious repercussions.

Think about it.  Do you *really* want to diminish the instructive value of
exemplary felony prosecution?

response 42 of 145:

Sep 28 02:42 UTC 2000

  Actually, I tend to agree with Richard that the price that might be
  paid by the moron in question is severe and out-of-proportion to his
  transgression.

  I also harbor a sneaking suspicion that more that a significant number
  of people on this system have engaged in behavior that, under the current
  law, might well qualify as a felony..  Although I never deliberately
  trashed anyone else's system, I can recall a few stunts I pulled back in
  my early student days that probably would have been prosecutable, had
  anyone cared to make a federal case out of them (to borrow a literally
  appropriate expression..)

response 44 of 145:

Sep 28 06:41 UTC 2000

I think that depends on if he's tried "as an adult" - which seems likely
in this case.

response 46 of 145:

Sep 28 14:40 UTC 2000

Quite a few years back, as a prank, two people tossed a dummy tied to a rope
off an overpass. A driver panicked, cut her wheel, and careened into the
overpass. Dead.

Pranks are not felonies. The results of pranks can be just as real as anything
else though (goes back to that stuff in the Napster item about "motive").

There's also that kid a few months back who told the girl from Columbine that
"it would happen again" -- again, just a prank, but the courts weren't amused.

And many computer virus writers are just pranking.

I thought the, "He's only 17, it's ok, he shouldn't be punished for the rest
of his life" defence only applied to the Republican presidential candidate.

response 48 of 145:

Sep 29 02:51 UTC 2000

But job interviews/applications ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony.
Isn't it dishonest to say 'no' simply because it's no longer on your record?

response 50 of 145:

Sep 29 05:34 UTC 2000

And once again, a computer is hardware.  Its doesn't suffer broken
windows.  The hardware may die, but it is not because of someone
breaking into root or throwing a manikin onto the Information
Superhighway in front of it.

If you allow real world analogies to be applied to the Internet you risk
real world people making big mistakes that you may not like. (I remember
one A2 Judge who's quote "I've seen _WARGAMES_, I know what you can do."
absolutely chilled me to the bone -that this Judge was presiding over
litigating something he knew absolutely nothing about.)

Too often, administrators of systems on the Internet find that it is
far easier to blame the script kiddy for their own lack of care and to
try to shield themselves from potential liability in the event their
system was used to attack elsewhere (as is perhaps the case here?).
In addition, cooperation with authorities beyond what has been
established as legal might just offer a precedent that you might not
like.  Right now in England ('common law' is base of our system) there
is or has passed a law to require that all ISPs install and maintain (at
their own expense?) to allow Law Enforcement to monitor activity. 
("Carnivore" is only the tip of the iceberg, folks.)
((I'm starting to sound like glr...))

In this case it sounds like some people went overboard  (to actually
work as an 'undercover informant'...indeed...).  In general, ISPs and
Internet-izens should cooperate with authorities only to the extent of
giving them precisely what they ask for, but not operate as agents of
the State.  Further, they should fight seizure of hardware offering that
a backup on media offers all the information they need.  To use a real
world analogy, its like the computer system is your house and the police
come to your city (real house) to offer a search warrant.  Instead of
merely searching your house for evidence, they take your whole house,
the trees, the driveway, the cable hookup, etc., and any other houses
you might own, cart them away, leaving you out on the street.  Hardly
seems a 'reasonable' search to me.