Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!edw
From: edw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Eddie Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Hacker Scholarship
Message-ID: <1226@ius2.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 3-Jul-87 17:41:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: ius2.1226
Posted: Fri Jul  3 17:41:21 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jul-87 20:47:04 EDT
References: <2757@mtgzz.UUCP> <345@genesis.UUCP> <2318@hoptoad.uucp> <2231@ames.arpa>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 69
Xref: mnetor comp.misc:796 misc.headlines:857

In article <2231@ames.arpa>, msf@amelia (Michael S. Fischbein) writes:

> One point that no one seems to have brought up yet in this discussion is
> the "attractive nuisance" laws.  As I understand them (ie, my nodding
> acquaintance with the topic), some items (such as a swimming pool) are
> "attractive nuisances" and it is the owner's responsibility to set up
> security measures (such as a fence to prevent the local toddlers from
> drowning)

  Attractive nuisance laws where made to protect people from hazardous areas
that are readily accessable to the public.  In the case of a pool, you are
require to put up a fence around it even though it is your own property because
any child could accidently fall into the pool.   Instead you having
the owner of the pool put the blame on the child for trespassing, the
blame is on the owner of the pool for not taking some sort of protective
measure.

  I do not see why attractive nuisance laws extend here since the
aim of the law was not to put the blame on the victum of a crime
because he didn't protect himself, but to have people exercise
more caution in instances where OTHERS MAY BE INDANGERED (in the above
example the pool owner was a victum of trespassing).

   This is not the case with publicly accessable computers.  No one
is physically or mentally at wrisk by there existance!


> Given the current state of US culture (no pro or con arguments, just
> let it be there), maintaining a computer system without minimal
> security is certainly an attraction, both to the irresponsible
> `crackers' and the curious 'hackers'.  Extending this sort of
> opportunity might even be contributing to the delinquency of a minor,
> or something.

  The analogy you are trying to draw generizes to , if you are a victum 
of property crime then its not the fault of the criminal, its your  fault,
you were temping him too much.  That is  unless you can show you've excessively
protected yourself.  If not, show me where your attitude differs.

> If you leave your stereo on the curb and someone picks it up
> thinking you are throwing it away, what then?  How about if you leave
> it in a public area, unsecured, for several days?

  He is guilty of theft.  He would be guilty of theft even if he was taking out
of your garbage.  If you find property, you are legally responsible for
reporting it to the police.  If no one claims it after n number of days, they
may give it to you. As simple as that.  Are you advocating - finders keeper,
loosers weepers?

[a lot of bad analogies]

  Lets consider all of us adopt your policies, which I'm intepreting as :
computer owners must take preventive measures to protect access to their
computers, otherwise hackers that invade their system would not be consider
responsible for their actions.

   I have a hacker trash my disk system and he is caught.  What do I have
to do to show that I was not negliable in protecting my system?

> 		mike
> 
> (maybe I should have said LaRC? :-))

-- 
					Eddie Wyatt

e-mail: edw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu

terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.