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.  

response 52 of 145:

Sep 29 10:18 UTC 2000

'Highly paid professionals' who are on their own time members of a
little club?  My point is not that m-net was not precluded from
participating in the 'feel good' law enforcement 'justify budget'
operation but that it was imprudent in doing so in the long run and 
in the greater scheme of things.  

My real point is that I personally believe that 'the Internet' per se
ought to be given a 'time out'.  It is the first 'lawless open frontier'
in the last 150 years (which saw the last of the last ones) and ought to
be treated very carefully lest the 'citizens' (netizens?) throw the baby
out with the bathwater and simply reitterate the mistakes of the past
instead of taking the opportunity of creating something new and
different *even* if 'netizens' use past knowlege base to do so.

And not to point a finger, but the 'victims' of this particular user are
his fellow users of a system that didn't use appropriate care in making
sure that this particular system was secure or so I'd bet 5 bucks (and
that is a big bet for me).  I bet the method the 'bad guy' cracked root
was well published on a number of professional sites that the 'm-net
staff' ought to have been monitoring and been aware of and long prior
corrected.  (If not and this kid is a super genius of 'mdw' class or
better than all the more reason not to fuck up his life.)

Look, traditional government State doesn't like you, or even the idea of
the Internet in the first place.  It has to deal with it because
Business has seen its potential, but it doesn't have to like it or take 
a hands off approach; it wants to control it.  For the first time in 150
years I can potentially sell 3 million barrels of oil and you can pay me
for it without the State having even a clue that such a transaction took
place much less tax or control it.  That is the real issue here (not to
mention I could, if 'cybercash' existed to a great extent offer an
anonymous auction for the assasination of Saddam Hussein for example
where if enough individual 'netizens' joined in), not that 'criminals'
would use 'cryptology' but that ordinary citizens can.

So while you see a little isolated case of a 'script kiddy' who cracked
root on m-net because he was allowed to due so probably because of
inattention and not incompetence on the part of m-net staff, I see a
whole ton of bricks coming down on the whole concept of individual
freedom on the Internet.


As I said before, knowing what little information is posted on m-net and
grex I think the kiddy ought to be publically spanked ('caned') by his
parents and that be the end of it.  If it were my child I'd have spanked
same long ago and would be rather indignant at State interest, but that
is me, and I think of meself as a responsible parent of a child I
spawned.

response 54 of 145:

Sep 29 14:43 UTC 2000

Computers are objects in the real world.
Real world laws apply to them.

response 56 of 145:

Sep 29 15:54 UTC 2000

        I don't entirely buy the explanation that a system's security staff
are responsible for any security compromises, to the point to which the script
kiddie is off the hook, any more than a warehouse's security staff is
responsible to the point to which a cat burglar is off the hook.  Especially
when it comes to freenets, it's not always possible to patch an exploitable
program or OS immediately, and sometimes it's not possible for a matter of
months.  People with nothing to do and a subscription to bugtraq will always
be faster.