Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!hao!gatech!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Newsgroups: comp.misc,misc.headlines Subject: Re: Hacker Scholarship Message-ID: <871@van-bc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Jun-87 03:51:47 EDT Article-I.D.: van-bc.871 Posted: Tue Jun 23 03:51:47 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jun-87 07:18:46 EDT References: <2757@mtgzz.UUCP> <345@genesis.UUCP> <2318@hoptoad.uucp> <497@cblpe.ATT.COM> Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC. Lines: 68 Xref: mnetor comp.misc:714 misc.headlines:705 In article <497@cblpe.ATT.COM> apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (55212-Alan Curtis) writes: >In article <2318@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >>You can't claim somebody >>is ripping you off if you leave your door wide open. >> > >Why the 'ell not! It is my stuff inside my house, you know it, >and I know it. Just cause I leave my door wide open, is NOT >a statment of lack of ownership. > >Jeez, what is today's society comming to if it can only be considered >theft if you break through six locks, three alarm systems, kill >four guard dogs, etc. > >Mine is mine, not yours!!! > >(I am upset, obviously!) >-- In this case the analogy (metaphor) used is a very poor one. Walking into someone's house and taking something is theft. It is a crimininal act. This is because most civilized states pass law's making it so. Unfortunately "breaking" into a computer system is not covered by these same laws. Until specific laws are passed making it illegal and criminal it simply isn't. (Fortunately this is SLOWLY happening!) Until such time as there are straight forward criminal statutes covering illegal access to computer services you will only have recourse via a civil suit against the parties involved. Some of the differences of civil vs. criminal proceedings do have to do with how well you have protected yourself. If you don't take reasonable precautions to prevent people from damaging your property you cannot expect the courts to do so. As technology improves the amount of protection you must undertake also increases, simply because it is more reasonable to do so. An extreme but related example of this type of suit is the current practice of the courts to lower awards to accident victims who did not wear their seat belts (at least in Canada). If the plaintiff was awarded (for example) $1 million, this will be reduced (for example) by 33% if the court feels that this is the amount of additional damages that were received due to not wearing the seat belt. The bottom line is that you cannot equate (as many people do) the civil and criminal justice systems. Different principles apply, different precendants and procedures. For the most part criminal proceedings are largely based on statute law, civil suits are judged on case or precendant law. And until something is covered by criminal law your only recourse will be the civil courts. And they simply operate under different assumptions. Just because you want it to be against the law doesnt' make it so. And just because it isn't against the law doesn't mean you can't sue them if the damage your property. Aside: The level of proof is often lower in civil suits. While in criminal actions the must be no uncertainty (because of the harsh remedies), civil law often only requires preponderance of the evidence. So it may actually be easier to get a favourable ruling in a civil court where you wouldn't in a criminal action. -- Stuart Lynne ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532