Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!bbn.com!pplacewa
From: pplacewa@bbn.com (Paul W Placeway)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: hacker = computer criminal
Message-ID: <59871@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 8 Oct 90 05:40:30 GMT
References: <30571@netnews.upenn.edu> <5628:Oct421:22:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 34

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

< That's true. They'd try to record only as much as would reasonably cover
< where they expected the criminal to go. That's exactly what Stoll did.

And when he found a more selective way to monitor _only_his_target_,
he switched to that.

Have you ever used an ATM?  Do you remember to smile at the camara?

The basic problem here is a clash of rights.  On the one hand, as a
user I (should) have the right to use my account in private, even over
the phone, just as I (might) have the right to talk to someone on the
phone privately.

On the other hand, I should have the right to detect and prevent (and
perhaps catch in the act) someone from using my system without my
prior aproval, just as I have the right to put locks on the doors of
my residence.

And I (probably) shouldn't have to search warrant to monitor my own
front door (back door, side window, etc).  But it might be reasonable
to require some kind of prior legal aproval for me to monitor all the
doors of an apartment building.

Finally, someone who has trespassed into my system should definitely
have the right to due process.

No, these analogies arn't perfect, but they are pretty close.  I have
to live and work in this corner if "cyberspace", and should be able to
do so without some other person breaking into my "house"/"office".
I ask nothing more than courtesy, but demand nothing less.

		-- Paul Placeway