Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!houxm!houxa!mel1
From: mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Hacker Scholarship
Message-ID: <554@houxa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jun-87 06:54:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxa.554
Posted: Thu Jun 25 06:54:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 01:46:53 EDT
References: <2757@mtgzz.UUCP> <345@genesis.UUCP> <2318@hoptoad.uucp> <2240@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 20
Xref: mnetor comp.misc:741 misc.headlines:740

In article <2240@bunker.UUCP>, rha@bunker.UUCP (The Minister of Myrth) writes:
>      Electronically stored information should be no different from any other
> tangible good.  If a computer system has even basic security features and
> this security is violated by someone who is not authorized, then this person
> should be guilty of either larceny or breaking and entering, whichever is
> more applicable to the particular circumstance.

Here is the statement I agree with.  But, note the operative phrase,
"If a computer system has even basic security features".

The punk who steals your car is a criminal and should be punished.  But,
how about the car maker that sold you the car but didn't supply adequate
locks?  or worse, put in fake locks that looked OK but aren't effective
in keeping the door closed or the ignition inoperative or the steering
locked?

Closer to the point, how about the bank that stores your valuables in
what looks like a vault, but is actually made of plaster?

   Mel Haas  ,  attmail!mel