full-disclosure - Hacking into private files, my credit card purchases, personal correspondence or anything that is mine is trespassing and criminal.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: jessevalentin at yahoo.com (Jesse Valentin)
Subject: Hacking into private files, my credit card purchases, personal correspondence or anything that is mine is trespassing and criminal.

OK Barry,

I understand the point you're trying to make but regardless of the technical definition you are still using something that you should be paying for - correct? Fraud, stealing, cookie baking, whatever you want to call it - isnt it a breach of security and isnt it still wrong?

These are some of the limitation of the law that I'm talking about. Every issue gets so diluted that the simple decision of what is right and what is wrong gets lost.

This results in months and months of debates and legal wrangling that in the end gets nowhere. Everyone is still divided - great moneymaker but unfortunately no justice.

Having to define every nuance of crime creates loopholes and large issues out of small potatoes. Take for example Sarbanes Oxley. This whole god awful thing was created to prevent issues like the Enron scandal from happening all over again. And what was that whole issue about? Yep, that's right.. stealing. Or was it fraud? Or was it unauthorized use? Or was it unauthorized possession? ... :-)

Jesse

Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec@....lonestar.org> wrote:Jesse Valentin wrote:

>
> My point is that just because something isn’t recognized as incorrect 
> by a “legal entity” this doesn’t necessarily indicate that the 
> conclusion is sound…
>
>
I agree with your point here, but you missed one of the nuances of my 
argument. The definition of theft isn't just a legal definition that 
occurs at one point in time. It's a *long*-standing legal concept that 
is grounded in millennia of philosophical interpretation.

Stealing is unathorized possession, not unathorized use. It's not just a 
legal contextual definition, it's a very set in stone and time tested 
legal definition.

It doesn't matter what someone's opinion of the misuse of the word is. 
The sky is not blood red no matter how many people say that it is.

And those who try to redefine theft with the intention of affecting an 
emotional reaction should recieve copious amounts of opposition because 
they're trying to affect the legal infrastructure by manipulating the 
language and, by extension, changing people's opinions when standard 
methods of changing their opinions simply don't work.

In other words: the drive is manipulative and it's being carried out by 
people who are malicious to society as a whole. Unfortunately, they've 
had great success in this and the average person misuses the terms 
without even knowing that they're doing harm.

-Barry

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20041012/67a0c48d/attachment.html