Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihu1g!fish
From: fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Password hacker gets probation (& other electronic crimes)
Message-ID: <310@ihu1g.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 14:44:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihu1g.310
Posted: Wed May  2 14:44:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 3-May-84 19:34:10 EDT
References: <90@tilt.UUCP>, <308@ihu1g.UUCP> <822@ihuxw.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 27

(oo)
"oooh, lord, don't let me be misunderstood..."

Equating a computer breakin by an amateur to breaking into a house
by a burglar is a false analogy.  Most "password hackers," as it was
put, are interested in mischief and the personal satisfaction of
having beaten somebody's system.  It's an elaborate game.  Burglars,
on the other hand, are usually interested in more than breaking
into the house and leaving a calling card on the mantle.  Rather,
they're interested in taking something that doesn't belong to them.

I stand by my original position; if an enterprise doesn't want to 
take the trouble of implementing effective security measures, people
who break into their computers shouldn't be severely punished! It's
kind of like leaving your keys in the car; in most places, if some
kid comes along and takes it for a joy ride, the law will hold
the careless owner partly responsible for the crime.  It's another
matter entirely if the same kid breaks into the car and yanks the
ignition lock with a slide hammer.  Likewise, if a computer enterprise
has an effective security system, it will take more than a computer
brat with an Apple II and an autodial modem to break into it.  Somebody
going to that kind of trouble to get into a computer probably is motivated
by something a little more worldly than electronic mischief.
-- 

                               Bob Fishell
                               ihnp4!ihu1g!fish