"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:XTUAe.229430$w15.134033@tornado.tampabay.rr.c om...
>I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>
> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy of
the death penalty in my mind.
>
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:XTUAe.229430$w15.134033@tornado.tampabay.rr.c om...
>>I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>
> It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy of
> the death penalty in my mind.
You can't be serious? Are we talking about life in Saudi Arabia? What should
be the penalty for speeding? Lightening up the "heavy foot" by cutting off
toes?
What the companies like Microsoft who make the crapware software in the
first place? Should they also be put to death to (by your reasoning).
> Creating bad software is not a crime and it's an opinion, hacking someone
> is a crime
Maybe, but look at the cause and effect. You write crapware software and
make it just too damn easy to hack, who's fault is it really? It is like
saying that leaving your door wide open and getting robbed is not your
fault. Well, if you leave your door wide open, it IS your fault as well as
the burglar.
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:31:03 +0000, Imhotep wrote:
>
>> I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>
>
> These Who gives liberty up to win more security the are losing both of
> them at a time...
Not at all. Let's face it there are some people out there that would gladly
take advantage of such naive thoughts as you have posted. The art of
security is balancing freedom and security....
>"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:XTUAe.229430$w15.134033@tornado.tampabay.rr. com...
>>I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy of
>the death penalty in my mind.
What is breaking and entry and grand larceny? Certainly NOT hacking.
breaking and entry is a crime of physical presence. You can not enter
virtually. And to break means to alter the physical state in a way which is
not its natural state. Larceny is to to remove a physical object from
possession. Now you may be dealing in metaphore, but metaphore is not law,
not should it be. the appropriateness of a metaphore is in the mind of the
proposer. For some a smile is a summer's day, for others a stab in the
heart.
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:31:03 +0000, Imhotep wrote:
>>
>>> I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>>
>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>>
>>
>> These Who gives liberty up to win more security the are losing both of
>> them at a time...
>Not at all. Let's face it there are some people out there that would gladly
>take advantage of such naive thoughts as you have posted. The art of
>security is balancing freedom and security....
There are people out there who take advantage of exactly the naive thoughts
that YOU are expressing. Robert Mugabe is a master of it. Other leaders I
could name also.
In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<Ea8Be.192851$IO.32878@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Imhotep wrote:
>Nog wrote:
>> It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy of
>> the death penalty in my mind.
>
>You can't be serious? Are we talking about life in Saudi Arabia?
Well, he's posting from what appears to be Augusta, Maine - maybe your
sarcasm detector needs re-calibrating.
>What should be the penalty for speeding? Lightening up the "heavy foot"
>by cutting off toes?
Only for the third conviction. (Seriously, at one time, some states in
the USA did have rather stiff penalties for speeding, including suspension
for a year for the first conviction 10 MPH over the limit, three years for
the second, and a permanent loss of license for the third conviction.)
>What the companies like Microsoft who make the crapware software in the
>first place? Should they also be put to death to (by your reasoning).
Sounds like a great idea to me, but you obviously haven't read the license
you agreed to when you installed that crap - you waved ALL rights to
anything, including the expectation that the software might attempt to do
something useful. If said software causes your computer to explode and
burn down your house - that's your problem, not microsoft's.
Moe Trin wrote:
> In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <Ea8Be.192851$IO.32878@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Imhotep wrote:
>
>>Nog wrote:
>
>
>>>It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy of
>>>the death penalty in my mind.
>>
>>You can't be serious? Are we talking about life in Saudi Arabia?
>
>
> Well, he's posting from what appears to be Augusta, Maine - maybe your
> sarcasm detector needs re-calibrating.
>
>
>>What should be the penalty for speeding? Lightening up the "heavy foot"
>>by cutting off toes?
>
>
> Only for the third conviction. (Seriously, at one time, some states in
> the USA did have rather stiff penalties for speeding, including suspension
> for a year for the first conviction 10 MPH over the limit, three years for
> the second, and a permanent loss of license for the third conviction.)
>
>
>>What the companies like Microsoft who make the crapware software in the
>>first place? Should they also be put to death to (by your reasoning).
>
>
> Sounds like a great idea to me, but you obviously haven't read the license
> you agreed to when you installed that crap - you waved ALL rights to
> anything, including the expectation that the software might attempt to do
> something useful. If said software causes your computer to explode and
> burn down your house - that's your problem, not microsoft's.
>
> Old guy
Death penalty for hackers, thinks someone has gone off their nut. We
don't even kill folks who kill people deliberately often enough.
I am more concerned about the arrest of an individual who accessed an
open wireless connection. The wireless network was open (i.e. no logon
or password required) and the individual who accessed this open
connection was accused of "hacking" into the network by the reporter in.
I have to wonder what the definition of hacking St Peterburg Times.
Makes me wonder if the next time I go to starbucks if I will be
arrested. (Though I probably should be for paying 5 bucks for a cup of
coffee).
While hacking into a wireless point I would consider wrong, accessing a
wide open connection should not be. Carried out to the ultimate lunacy,
anyone accessing an http server without explicit permission should be
arrested.
This is pretty crazy and even worse folks are saying it is a gray area
in law....sheesh..ok lets hang this guy, better yet the reporter who
claimed this was hacking. Of the several articles I found, none
indicated this individual did anything more than access the Internet
over an open connection.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:35:54 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:XTUAe.229430$w15.134033@tornado.tampabay.rr. com...
>>I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>
>It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy of
>the death penalty in my mind.
>
I recall reading the newspaper in San Diego back in the 90s and they
were beating the drum for more city government money by putting
articles in the newspaper about how the legal system/jails were so
backlogged that they weren't prosecuting burglary cases anymore.
Sounded like the usual San Diego politics. The mayor just resigned
recently. Probably needed to be hung ;)
"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ea8Be.192851$IO.32878@tornado.tampabay.rr.com ...
> Nog wrote:
>
>>
>> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:XTUAe.229430$w15.134033@tornado.tampabay.rr.c om...
>>>I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>>
>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>>
>> It is breaking and entry and sometimes grand larceny. All crimes worthy
>> of
>> the death penalty in my mind.
>
> You can't be serious? Are we talking about life in Saudi Arabia? What
> should
> be the penalty for speeding? Lightening up the "heavy foot" by cutting off
> toes?
We have a democracy so we can adjust the laws and get rid of the silly ones.
Speeding is a silly law. But on the other hand if you kill someone with your
car, that's is manslaughter and warrents the death penalty.
> What the companies like Microsoft who make the crapware software in the
> first place? Should they also be put to death to (by your reasoning).
>
> Im
In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<db57t0$8b1@dispatch.concentric.net>, winged wrote:
>Death penalty for hackers, thinks someone has gone off their nut. We
>don't even kill folks who kill people deliberately often enough.
never mind beheading spammers with a dull rusty uxe.
>I am more concerned about the arrest of an individual who accessed an
>open wireless connection. The wireless network was open (i.e. no logon
>or password required) and the individual who accessed this open
>connection was accused of "hacking" into the network by the reporter in.
From an article in a thread that started 6 July 2005 in the newsgroup
'alt.internet.wireless' with a title 'Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi
Signal" (watch the line wrap)
]http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_
String=&URL=Ch0815/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0815->Section%2006#0815.06
]
] The very first item is:
]
] 815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
] (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
] (a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer
] system, or computer network;
]
] which covers the illegal access. 2(a) makes it a 3rd degree felony.
]
] (2)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever
] violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree,
] punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
A Third Degree Felony is punishable by a term of imprisonment not to
exceed 5 years and a fine not to exceed $5,000.00
>I have to wonder what the definition of hacking St Peterburg Times.
Don't forget - the "press" has wider interpretations of terms, because they
have to sell newspapers or air time. Laws on the other hand, are written
by lawyers for interpretation by lawyers.
>Makes me wonder if the next time I go to starbucks if I will be
>arrested. (Though I probably should be for paying 5 bucks for a cup of
>coffee).
No, the $5 charge for a cup of crap coffee is the "punishment".
>While hacking into a wireless point I would consider wrong, accessing a
>wide open connection should not be. Carried out to the ultimate lunacy,
>anyone accessing an http server without explicit permission should be
>arrested.
Again - watch the line wrap
]http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0
815/ch0815.htm
]
]That explains what Florida means by "access".
]
] 815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context
] clearly indicates otherwise:
]
] (1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store
] data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any
] resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
]
] Egads. One can't even approach a computer in Florida without breaking
] the law.
Moe Trin wrote:
> In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <db57t0$8b1@dispatch.concentric.net>, winged wrote:
>
>
>>Death penalty for hackers, thinks someone has gone off their nut. We
>>don't even kill folks who kill people deliberately often enough.
>
>
> never mind beheading spammers with a dull rusty uxe.
>
>
>>I am more concerned about the arrest of an individual who accessed an
>>open wireless connection. The wireless network was open (i.e. no logon
>>or password required) and the individual who accessed this open
>>connection was accused of "hacking" into the network by the reporter in.
>
>
> From an article in a thread that started 6 July 2005 in the newsgroup
> 'alt.internet.wireless' with a title 'Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi
> Signal" (watch the line wrap)
>
> ]http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_
> String=&URL=Ch0815/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0815->Section%2006#0815.06
> ]
> ] The very first item is:
> ]
> ] 815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
> ] (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
> ] (a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer
> ] system, or computer network;
> ]
> ] which covers the illegal access. 2(a) makes it a 3rd degree felony.
> ]
> ] (2)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever
> ] violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree,
> ] punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
>
> A Third Degree Felony is punishable by a term of imprisonment not to
> exceed 5 years and a fine not to exceed $5,000.00
>
>
>>I have to wonder what the definition of hacking St Peterburg Times.
>
>
> Don't forget - the "press" has wider interpretations of terms, because they
> have to sell newspapers or air time. Laws on the other hand, are written
> by lawyers for interpretation by lawyers.
>
>
>>Makes me wonder if the next time I go to starbucks if I will be
>>arrested. (Though I probably should be for paying 5 bucks for a cup of
>>coffee).
>
>
> No, the $5 charge for a cup of crap coffee is the "punishment".
>
>
>>While hacking into a wireless point I would consider wrong, accessing a
>>wide open connection should not be. Carried out to the ultimate lunacy,
>>anyone accessing an http server without explicit permission should be
>>arrested.
>
>
> Again - watch the line wrap
>
> ]http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0
> 815/ch0815.htm
> ]
> ]That explains what Florida means by "access".
> ]
> ] 815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context
> ] clearly indicates otherwise:
> ]
> ] (1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store
> ] data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any
> ] resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
> ]
> ] Egads. One can't even approach a computer in Florida without breaking
> ] the law.
>
> so KEEP YOUR DISTANCE FROM COMPUTERS!!!
>
> Old guy
ahh old guy once again you have the answer. Hang everyone in Florida
immediately. Since they did not define the nearness of approach I think
it should be anyone that has been closer to a computer or a computer
network of a distance of 100 feet.
That will fix the election issues and several other issues in on fell swoop.
Wonderful response. Thanks! Just shows what lawyers and legislators
know about computers and the greater threat of their incompetence.
With this law almost anyone could be arrested at will with cause. It
sounds like more than a few legislators are in need of dancing with
Danny Deaver.
> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> writes:
>
>>Rafer wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:31:03 +0000, Imhotep wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess next we should cut off a toe for speeding....
>>>>
>>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...34259&from=rss
>>>
>>>
>>> These Who gives liberty up to win more security the are losing both of
>>> them at a time...
>
>>Not at all. Let's face it there are some people out there that would
>>gladly take advantage of such naive thoughts as you have posted. The art
>>of security is balancing freedom and security....
>
> There are people out there who take advantage of exactly the naive
> thoughts that YOU are expressing. Robert Mugabe is a master of it. Other
> leaders I could name also.
It is naive to think that all people can survive without restrictions.
Sorry, but some can't and some can. It is the ones that can't that ruin it
for the others. Because of this there will always need to be a balancing of
freedom and constraints....
>>
>> From an article in a thread that started 6 July 2005 in the newsgroup
>> 'alt.internet.wireless' with a title 'Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi
>> Signal" (watch the line wrap)
>>
>> ]http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_
>> String=&URL=Ch0815/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0815->Section%2006#0815.06
>> ]
>> ] The very first item is:
>> ]
>> ] 815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
>> ] (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
>> ] (a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer
>> ] system, or computer network;
>> ]
>> ] which covers the illegal access. 2(a) makes it a 3rd degree felony.
And how do you know that access to an open wireless port is "illegal
access". The key is "without authorization". But almost all access is
without formal authorization-- it is implicit. When was the last time you
asked for formal written authorization to go to a web page? Or asked for
formal written authorization to have your signal propagated over the
backbone from florida to Los Angeles? Must authorization on the net and of
computers is implicit -- if the access is provided freely and openly,
access is implicitly assumed. When you go to Starbucks and log onto the
wireless are you authorized? or find a wireless point in your local city,
are you authorized? In general no.
>> 815/ch0815.htm
>> ]
>> ]That explains what Florida means by "access".
>> ]
>> ] 815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context
>> ] clearly indicates otherwise:
>> ]
>> ] (1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store
>> ] data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any
>> ] resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
>> ]
>> ] Egads. One can't even approach a computer in Florida without breaking
>> ] the law.
>>
>> so KEEP YOUR DISTANCE FROM COMPUTERS!!!
>>
>> Old guy
>ahh old guy once again you have the answer. Hang everyone in Florida
>immediately. Since they did not define the nearness of approach I think
>it should be anyone that has been closer to a computer or a computer
>network of a distance of 100 feet.
>That will fix the election issues and several other issues in on fell swoop.
>Wonderful response. Thanks! Just shows what lawyers and legislators
>know about computers and the greater threat of their incompetence.
>With this law almost anyone could be arrested at will with cause. It
>sounds like more than a few legislators are in need of dancing with
>Danny Deaver.
In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<db6sqf$8b4@dispatch.concentric.net>, winged wrote:
>ahh old guy once again you have the answer. Hang everyone in Florida
>immediately.
Well, I'm not living there ;-)
>Since they did not define the nearness of approach I think it should be
>anyone that has been closer to a computer or a computer network of a
>distance of 100 feet.
Might make it hard to get groceries or gas - but if it only applies to
Florida...
>That will fix the election issues and several other issues in on fell swoop.
Think how many spam domains it would nail if they enforced those laws. I
swear there are more spam support networks in Florida than all of China.
>Wonderful response. Thanks! Just shows what lawyers and legislators
>know about computers and the greater threat of their incompetence.
There are a lot more of these types of laws on the books - not just in
the USA. There is a similar law in the UK, although I don't recall the
exact punishments.
>With this law almost anyone could be arrested at will with cause.
If I understand it correctly, this law was passed in 2003, and this
is the first time it's been used. We'll have to see if it stands up
under appeal. It (or at least this section) could be tossed as being
to broad.
>Yeah the coffee is waaaayyy overrated.
I've tasted better coffee made from grocery store brands.
Death Penalty for Hackers??? 
Linear Mode
