Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: zweig@ida.org (Johnny zweig)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil"
Message-ID: <9700@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Jul 90 21:33:24 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 32
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 481, Message 5 of 6


My two cents:

There is a difference between someone who waltzes into the unlocked
front door of my house to peruse the contents of my underwear
drawer(*) and someone who wanders through my garden (the gate has a
latch but no lock, by the way) to look at my flowers.

I do not support anybody doing something illegal, but I think the "in
your house messing with your stuff" analogy for phreaking/cracking (I
abhor the use of the word hacking to describe such activities; it is
technically incorrect).  I think the "wandering through the garden
sniffing the flowers" analogy might be more appropriate.  Crackers who
go in to see what's there and pat themselves on the back are n a
morally different category than people who break into systems to screw
things up and/or to steal sensitive information.

If you look at how sensitive information is protected by the DoD, you
will get a perspective on why DEC saying that they were not being
unspeakably negligent in letting an 11 year old break into their
system and look at "sensitive" data is so ridiculous.  If I were to
take a classified document out of myself and leave it on the desk
while I go to the bathroom, I could be prosecuted legally.  If I put
it into a shoebox and wrote "leave this stuff alone" on the outside, I
could also.  Security is as much what you do as what you outlaw.


Johnny

(*) Burglars tend to look in underwear drawers as the first part of
the houses they break into since many people keep valuables and guns
and stuff like that in there.