Hackers: Computer Outlaws revisited

From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis_at_mcmanis.com>
Date: Fri Jul 27 12:33:20 2001

At 11:20 PM 7/26/01 -0700, Sellam wrote:
>But all that aside, see my previous message: security, physical or
>virtual, is YOUR responsiblity. If you don't want anyone coming into your
>house or your server, LOCK THEM UP! Did they still get in? You didn't
>use good enough locks. Try again.

This kind of works and kind of doesn't. I can certainly agree that I am
responsible for putting locks on my private spaces, however I also believe
that entering someone else's private space without their permission is, at
a minimum, extremely rude, and at most a criminal act. Further, the "crime"
aspect of trespassing goes up when you are clearly aware that your presence
is not invited (i.e. posted signs, a log-on banner that says keep out, a
door that is closed to my house). If you purposely violate an area asking
you not to, than YOU, the trespasser, have to take responsibility for
whatever happens to you, and whatever damage you do. So you go where you
don't belong and you get killed that is your own dumb fault, not the owner
of the place where you illegally entered.

As to Jeff's question about why computer crimes are treated more severely
than local crimes, it turns out that only the FBI can investigate crimes
that cross state boundaries and computer crimes invariably do. Then federal
law establishes punishments based on getting the FBI involved and typically
its a much higher bar then getting the local sheriff involved. Thus the
punishments are invariably higher. Thus the apparent disproportionate
severity associated with computer crime is actually a structural issue
within the law enforcement structure rather than a mis-matched parity issue
of "high tech" vs "low tech." There are folks in our government who would
like to nationalize the police departments of the states to "fix" this
problem for you, don't let them.

--Chuck
Received on Fri Jul 27 2001 - 12:33:20 BST