Again, there's the problem with perception. I don't interpret Jan's post as whining about the insecurity of the Internet per se. To me, it appears he is simply noting, quite correctly IMO, that there is an idiotic notion prevailing that somehow, because the Internet *is* insecure, that it gives every thug with a keyboard the right to break into other people's property.
And from what I've read, an awful lot of folks seem to be defending that idiotic notion with comments like 'being on the Internet is voluntary' or 'people are inherently evil'. The former I see as being immaterial (and a ludicrous statement to begin with). The latter I perceive as being cynical and just a form of rationalization. I think the same about the comment that it's all just a by-product of curiousity. I am not a fan of regulating the Internet either. However, it will be the thugs breaking in via their keyboards that bring about regulation, not those who complain about it nor those who are victimized by it. So long as some persist in trying to break it or break in, there will be a push to somehow fix it. And that is where the laws will come into play. -- Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alen Capalik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mary Landesman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Andrew Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Banta, Will" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "morning_wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Hacking into private files, my credit card purchases, personal correspondence or anything that is mine is trespassing and criminal. Ok, this will be my last post on this subject. It's getting borring, and I have work to do. My point is that, as in real life, we need security on the Internet because of the way people choose to behave. I, you and most others choose to behive in a "socially excepted" manner, which is to say we choose not to brake rules (or if you want to call them laws, even thou I get scared when I hear any laws of any countery being applied to Internet). However, other people (script kiddies, kids with way too much time, and crackers) choose to brake into our computers. Complaining about it on the Full-Disclosure list won't change that, and applying some stupid laws to the Internet because some kid decided to use a root kit he downloaded from the Internet while his mama was at work is just plain DUMB. Arguments like this guy's from Citigroup, is what makes governments consider regulating the Internet. I OPPOSE REGULATION OF THE INTERNET. I get enough regulation on TV and Radio. Just face it and get over it, there is going to be people who want to get into your computers, as well as people who want to get into your house. It's the nature of a human being to be curious, and if you give her/him an excuse, like wide open systems and networks, it's going to happen. If I leave a key on my house door, eventually somebody is going to want to come in and look around. What scares me is that this guy from Citigroup is whining about this, and if he has time whining about this, how much so called "UNIX Security Consultation" is he doing to protect our bank accounts from inevetable... Thank you for listening... On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:01:35 -0400, Mary Landesman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to laugh, since I had the same thought as you! Except I interpreted > the childish behavior as coming from the side you seem to be defending. :-) > > Perception is everything. > > IMO, arguing that our presence on the Internet is voluntary and that it > somehow excuses bad behavior is simply ridiculous. Heck, our presence in our > homes, in our cars, in our jobs is all voluntary. Using that argument, then, > should we just all have a greedy free for all? > > And I don't agree with the rather cynical outlook of one poster who claims > we are somehow wired to be bad and that only negative consequences change > it. Sounds rather like a handly rationalization to me. > > Stating that the Internet is somehow not real life is another > head-scratcher. It's people driven, it's a part of our lives, our careers, > our education. According to the dictionary, a society is "A group of humans > broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation > in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture." > > Sounds much like the Internet to me. Would you argue that a society is not > part of real life and thus should be exempt from common courtesies, morals, > and ethics? > > -- Mary > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
