From: mlande at bellsouth.net (Mary Landesman)
Subject: Hacking into private files, my credit card purchases, personal correspondence or anything that is mine is trespassing and criminal.

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" <wiretap@...il.com>
To: "Mary Landesman" <mlande@...lsouth.net>
Cc: "Andrew Smith" <stfunub@...il.com>; "Banta, Will"
<will.banta@...adwing.com>; "morning_wood" <se_cur_ity@...mail.com>;
<full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
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 <mlande@...lsouth.net>
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
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists