Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!mit-eddie!barmar
From: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Password hacker gets probation (& other electronic crimes)
Message-ID: <1724@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 22:31:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1724
Posted: Wed May  2 22:31:51 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 01:19:17 EDT
References: <90@tilt.UUCP>, <308@ihu1g.UUCP> <822@ihuxw.UUCP> <310@ihu1g.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 41

--------------------
Equating a computer breakin by an amateur to breaking into a house
by a burglar is a false analogy.
--------------------

Right.  I prefer an analogy to trespassing.

One problem, though, is in the definition of "adequate security
measures".  I would generally consider most computer password systems to
be as good as the deadbolt lock on my front door, and I generally
consider it to be adequate.  Of course, leaving well-known passwords on
the system (that is how the 414's got into Sloan-Kettering, I believe)
is like locking one's front door with one of those tiny, standard locks
for suitcases.

Intentions are very important.  At MIT we have a long tradition of
"roof-hacking" and "tunnel-hacking", which generally involve hanging out
in parts of the campus buildings that we are not supposed to be.  There
is never any malice involved, so when we are caught we are just asked to
leave (they instituted a $50 fine for roof-hacking a couple of years
ago, but I think it was mostly to appease the insurance company, and I
have never heard of it being enforced).  This is pretty close to what
the kids who break into computers are doing.  There is rarely any
intentional damage, and they usually play around at night, so the
computrons they are using would probably be wasted anyway.

Of course, there are malicious crackers.  One of the people I work with
told me about something that took place while he was in college or HS.
A cracker was caught by the operator when he broke into a system, and
the operator politely asked him to get off.  The cracker was annoyed by
this, so he wiped out the file system.  I would consider that system
completely inadequate, since it sounds like a disgruntled employee with
authorization to use the machine could dothe same thing.  However, that
doesn't alter the fact that the cracker maliciously destroyed the data.
This is analogous to the fact that my car has no protection against
someone with a sledge-hammer, but that doesn't give someone with a
sledge-hammer the right to demolish it.
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar