Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!mauney From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Must computer systems be an armed camp? Message-ID: <2745@ncsu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 09:41:30 EST Article-I.D.: ncsu.2745 Posted: Mon Dec 17 09:41:30 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 01:15:54 EST References: <229@looking.UUCP> Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh Lines: 27 > While it's true that proper security is the only "secure" solution to > computer break-ins, can we take proposals that the laws should not > be there seriously? Translate them to other forms of property.. > > "Laws against theft attack the symptom, not the problem. What are truly > necessary are bolted doors, security patrols, guard dogs, and fully > authenticated access procedures. Anybody who protects their house with > something as easily breakable as glass is ASKING to be broken into. > Anybody who leaves their door unlocked might as well give their property away." I agree that computer crimes are wrong and that there should be laws concerning them. But I also think that companies with sensitive computers would be foolish to depend on laws to protect them. Would you deposit your valuables in a bank that *didn't* have an electronic burglar alarm and an impressive locking system on the vault? Would you expect insurance companies to put up with banks that transport large amounts of cash in ordinary vehicles? No. Making bank robbery a federal offense is not sufficient to prevent robberies. Similarly, I don't like the idea that TRW probably has a credit file on me that can easily be gotten to by crackers. Just as it should be a crime to break into TRW's system, it should be criminally negligent of TRW to have inadequate security precautions. -- *** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR LINE *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University