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.