In a message dated: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:13:43 CDT
"Mansur, Warren" said:
>If a thief breaks into my car, and then uses it to run over and kill 10
>people, am I responsible for the death of those 10 people? The police
>may at first suspect me because my car was used, but as soon as they
>find out my car was stolen and someone else did the killing, I will be
>absolved of all charges.
Depends, you can easily be held accountable for accessory to the
crime, aiding and abetting, wrongful death, etc. The police may not
charge you, but if it is discovered that the windows were down and
the keys were in it, something else "usable" by the prosecution, get
ready for a civil lawsuit brought on by the families of the victims...
>Similarly, if someone breaks into my computer, and then uses it to hack
>into other systems, scan other systems, spread viruses, etc . . . , am I
>responible for the hacking, scanning, or viruses? Again, your internet
>provider may at first suspect you because it was your computer that
>committed the crimes. But, as soon as they find out it wasn't you, how
>can they say it's your fault?
You enabled the perpetrator by allowing access to the weapon.
>Nothing works this way in life. If I own a hammer, and someone uses my
>hammer to kill somebody, am I a murderer? If I own a crowbar, and
>someone uses my crowbar to break into a house, do I become a thief? If
>I own a computer, and someone uses my computer to hack into other
>systems, do I become a hacker?
No, you are not the hacker or the thief, but you did enable them to
carry out their crimes. In the case of the computer, if you did not
perform your due diligence of constantly upgrading your systems to
protect from malicios individuals, you are guitly through negligence.
It's the same as if some one broke into your house and found your gun
not locked in a safe and that gun was then used to kill someone.
>Ownership by itself does not imply guilt.
We're not saying anyone is guilty of committing the crime in
questions. We are saying that you are guilty of enabling, aiding and
abetting, and accessory to the crime via negligence.
>Therefore it is my opinion that AT&T cannot say that you are a hacker
>based only on the fact that your computer has been involved in some
>illegal activities, and their policy to permanently turn off your
>service is basically ridiculous. There are other alternatives such as
>tracking down the hacker or providing help with some type of firewall
>service.
>
>That's my opinion. I'm sure there are 50 others :-)
AT&T is not saying that he is a hacker. They are saying that through
his negligence, he has enabled others to disrupt their service and
therefore, he is being held accountable for his negligence *and* for
ignoring their warnings.
--
Seeya,
Paul
----
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
