Honeypots Illegal? - Security

This is a discussion on Honeypots Illegal? - Security ; I sure hope things have changed in the last four years: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004 Is this still illegal? What a load of crap. -- % Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77

Thread: Honeypots Illegal?

  1. Honeypots Illegal?

    I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:

    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004

    Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
    %%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
    %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  2. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    Randy Yates :
    > I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >
    > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >
    > Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.


    You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner
    that it's private property, your actions may be monitored and
    captured, and anything done on the machine may become public
    knowledge, as in used as evidence in court. If you continue and
    you're not authorized to do so, you're trespassing and are yourself
    guilty of theft of communications.

    Where's the difference between that and a honeypot? The fact that
    these machines are actually doing things, whereas the honeypot's just
    there listening and logging? Collecting evidence to protect yourself
    or to document a crime you've suffered isn't a crime itself yet, is
    it?

    You should, of course, ask your question to a qualified lawyer. As
    for me, it's not a problem I'll worry about.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  3. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    "s. keeling" writes:

    >Randy Yates :
    >> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>
    >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>
    >> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.


    >You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner
    >that it's private property, your actions may be monitored and
    >captured, and anything done on the machine may become public
    >knowledge, as in used as evidence in court. If you continue and
    >you're not authorized to do so, you're trespassing and are yourself
    >guilty of theft of communications.


    It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they are
    not a real property that could be stolen.


    >Where's the difference between that and a honeypot? The fact that
    >these machines are actually doing things, whereas the honeypot's just
    >there listening and logging? Collecting evidence to protect yourself
    >or to document a crime you've suffered isn't a crime itself yet, is
    >it?


    Depends on how you collect the evidence. If I cut your clothes from you
    with a razor to protect the evidence that you hit me, yes, it is a crime.
    As the article says, if you are listening in in order to prevent a crime,
    it is probably not a crime itself.


    >You should, of course, ask your question to a qualified lawyer. As
    >for me, it's not a problem I'll worry about.


  4. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    On Dec 4, 8:54 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
    > Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.


    Hi I am a system administrator and I have a honeynet deployment. But I
    live at Brazil, so I can't answer your question but at
    http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp8.pdf you may find a text about it
    written by a guy from the department of justice of your country. You
    may also search for ``Honeypots: Tracking Hackers''. It is also a book
    covering all aspect of honeypots.

  5. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:

    > "s. keeling" writes:
    >
    >>Randy Yates :
    >>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>
    >>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    >
    >>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.

    >
    > It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    > are not a real property that could be stolen.


    IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    stolen it?


  6. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    PedroArthur_JEdi writes:

    > On Dec 4, 8:54 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
    >> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    >
    > Hi I am a system administrator and I have a honeynet deployment. But I
    > live at Brazil, so I can't answer your question but at
    > http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp8.pdf you may find a text about it
    > written by a guy from the department of justice of your country. You
    > may also search for ``Honeypots: Tracking Hackers''. It is also a book
    > covering all aspect of honeypots.


    Looks like a wonderful text on the subject.

    I'm sorry if I gave the impression I'm in this deeply - I'm not. This
    idea of defending the criminal makes me angry.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
    %%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
    %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  7. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    In message , mr.b wrote:

    > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:
    >
    >> "s. keeling" writes:
    >>
    >>>Randy Yates :
    >>>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    >>
    >>>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.

    >>
    >> It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    >> are not a real property that could be stolen.

    >
    > IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    > connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    > and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    > stolen it?


    In the UK, theft is taking with the intent to permanently deprive the owner
    of the use of the item, so taking the car and leaving it in a repairable
    state isn't theft. That's why we have a specific offence to cover that (if
    the car is damaged enough to be written off then it becomes theft). As far
    as computers go, there's theft of electricity, because making a computer do
    something potentially causes it to use more power than if it had been left
    idle.
    --
    Dave
    mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
    http://www.llondel.org
    So many gadgets, so little time

  8. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    s. keeling :
    > Randy Yates :
    > > I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    > >
    > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    > >
    > > Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    >
    > You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner


    I wrote that before reading the whole article. Most of my complaints
    are mentioned there, but I still don't think that article's anything
    to worry about.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  9. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    "mr.b" writes:

    >On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:


    >> "s. keeling" writes:
    >>
    >>>Randy Yates :
    >>>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    >>
    >>>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.

    >>
    >> It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    >> are not a real property that could be stolen.


    >IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    >connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    >and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    >stolen it?



    Get out your lawbooks or the laws of your country and read the definition
    of trespassing and of theft. You are using analogies which are usually
    dangerous.
    What the hell has sitting in Jag got to do with doing anything on a
    computer. Unless you are asking about someone coming into your house,
    taking the cover off your computer and sitting in it, your analogy is
    inappropriate and irrelevant.


  10. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    Randy Yates writes:

    >PedroArthur_JEdi writes:


    >> On Dec 4, 8:54 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
    >>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    >>
    >> Hi I am a system administrator and I have a honeynet deployment. But I
    >> live at Brazil, so I can't answer your question but at
    >> http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp8.pdf you may find a text about it
    >> written by a guy from the department of justice of your country. You
    >> may also search for ``Honeypots: Tracking Hackers''. It is also a book
    >> covering all aspect of honeypots.


    >Looks like a wonderful text on the subject.


    >I'm sorry if I gave the impression I'm in this deeply - I'm not. This
    >idea of defending the criminal makes me angry.


    There is a controversy in Arizona right now of a homeowner who shot and
    killed two unarmed people who were running away from his house. I certainly
    think he should be up for 2nd degree murder. But then I think the cops in
    VAncouver Canada who tasered a confused immigrant in the airport who had
    done nothing more than at worst disturb the peace should also be charged
    with 2nd degree murder. It is not the criminal I want to defend, it is
    myself against people who think that they can be lawyer, jury, judge and
    hangman for things that they consider to be crimes. One of the whole
    purposes of the justice system is to make the punishment applied by
    disinterested people, (that is disinterested, not uninterested to those who
    have trouble with the English language). You do not have the right to break
    the law in order to punish someone who had done something you happen not to
    like. It is YOU that becomes the criminal then, and it looks to me like you
    are the one defending the criminal.


  11. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    Randy Yates :
    > PedroArthur_JEdi writes:
    > > On Dec 4, 8:54 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
    > >> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.

    > >
    > > Hi I am a system administrator and I have a honeynet deployment. But I
    > > live at Brazil, so I can't answer your question but at
    > > http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp8.pdf you may find a text about it
    > > written by a guy from the department of justice of your country. You
    > > may also search for ``Honeypots: Tracking Hackers''. It is also a book

    >
    > Looks like a wonderful text on the subject.
    >
    > I'm sorry if I gave the impression I'm in this deeply - I'm not. This


    I didn't get that impression.

    > idea of defending the criminal makes me angry.


    Ditto, and I'm not into this deeply myself. I just think if the law
    goes the cracker's way, the law's wrong. Getting away with cracking
    other's boxes because you couldn't see the login banner, which every
    legitimate user would see, is just plain wrong. It *has* to be legal
    to secure access to your systems, else they're not really yours.
    Surveilling/logging *what's hitting on your network* has to be part of
    that.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  12. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    "Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}" writes:

    >In message , mr.b wrote:


    >> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:
    >>
    >>> "s. keeling" writes:
    >>>
    >>>>Randy Yates :
    >>>>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.
    >>>
    >>>>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>>>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>>>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>>>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>>>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.
    >>>
    >>> It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    >>> are not a real property that could be stolen.

    >>
    >> IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    >> connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    >> and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    >> stolen it?


    >In the UK, theft is taking with the intent to permanently deprive the owner
    >of the use of the item, so taking the car and leaving it in a repairable
    >state isn't theft. That's why we have a specific offence to cover that (if
    >the car is damaged enough to be written off then it becomes theft). As far
    >as computers go, there's theft of electricity, because making a computer do
    >something potentially causes it to use more power than if it had been left
    >idle.


    There is a maxim of law that the law does not concern itself with triffles.
    If you drop a penny on the street and I see it drop and keep it, that is
    theft, but the law would be idiotic to prosecute you. The law would be
    equally idiotic to prosecute for that theft of electricity ( which is less
    than the electricity used if I walk past your house and cause the IR
    detector on your lights to switch on your ourside lights-- should I be
    prosecuted for that?) The courts have upon occasion entertained such idiocy
    when they felt that there was something done that did cause a genuine tort,
    but no law actually defines it as a crime. But that is IMHO a gross misuse
    of the law. If it really should be a crime, then debate it in the
    legislature and write it to be a crime.



  13. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    "s. keeling" writes:

    >Randy Yates :
    >> PedroArthur_JEdi writes:
    >> > On Dec 4, 8:54 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
    >> >> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.
    >> >
    >> > Hi I am a system administrator and I have a honeynet deployment. But I
    >> > live at Brazil, so I can't answer your question but at
    >> > http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp8.pdf you may find a text about it
    >> > written by a guy from the department of justice of your country. You
    >> > may also search for ``Honeypots: Tracking Hackers''. It is also a book

    >>
    >> Looks like a wonderful text on the subject.
    >>
    >> I'm sorry if I gave the impression I'm in this deeply - I'm not. This


    >I didn't get that impression.


    >> idea of defending the criminal makes me angry.


    >Ditto, and I'm not into this deeply myself. I just think if the law
    >goes the cracker's way, the law's wrong. Getting away with cracking
    >other's boxes because you couldn't see the login banner, which every
    >legitimate user would see, is just plain wrong. It *has* to be legal
    >to secure access to your systems, else they're not really yours.
    >Surveilling/logging *what's hitting on your network* has to be part of
    >that.


    The question was NOT whether or not it is legal to secure access to your
    system. The question was whether or not a so called "honeypot" is legal.
    Whether recording communication between the cracker and others is legal,
    whether a cracker going into a system whose whole purpose is to allow,
    indeed encourage, the cracker to go into it makes the cracker's actions
    illegal.

    And just because it is legal to secure your system does not mean that
    anything you do, which you think secures it, is legal.



  14. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    In article news:, Mr.b wrote:
    > If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    > and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    > stolen it?


    IANAL but AIUI (here in the UK, at least) the person who did that might
    not have stolen the jag -- as stealing implies an "intention
    permanently to deprive" the owner of the goods taken. He would,
    however, be guilty of "taking and driving away".

    But back to the topic ...

    If a would-be cracker visits my honeypot and my honeypot records his
    activities while there it is NOT "intercepting" communications, as the
    cracker has chosen to send packets to the honeypot and it is the
    honeypot that is handling those packets (albeit not in the way the
    cracker expected -- but the honeypot has made no representation as to
    what will be done with them, and so is entitled to do as I please with
    them).

    However, a /firewall/ intercepts packets addressed to another machine
    and take actions such as logging them and/or refusing to handle them.
    If that's not interception I don't know what is. Are firewalls illegal?

    Cheers,
    Daniel.



  15. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:32:10 +0000, Unruh wrote:

    > "mr.b" writes:
    >
    >>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:

    >
    >>> "s. keeling" writes:
    >>>
    >>>>Randy Yates :
    >>>>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.
    >>>
    >>>>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>>>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>>>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>>>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>>>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.
    >>>
    >>> It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    >>> are not a real property that could be stolen.

    >
    >>IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    >>connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    >>and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    >>stolen it?

    >
    >
    > Get out your lawbooks or the laws of your country and read the definition
    > of trespassing and of theft. You are using analogies which are usually
    > dangerous.
    > What the hell has sitting in Jag got to do with doing anything on a
    > computer. Unless you are asking about someone coming into your house,
    > taking the cover off your computer and sitting in it, your analogy is
    > inappropriate and irrelevant.


    hmmm...I guess I'll have to simplify this for you. I have a thing and it
    is mine, not yours. You help yourself to my thing without my permission.
    You have stolen my thing. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Mine=not
    yours. Law regarding unauthorised access to computers is just about
    as clear, and as simple. My analogy was both relevant and appropriate,
    your not so humble opinion notwithstanding. Your interpretation of real
    property etc. appeared to me as little more than semantic dithering. Are
    you a lawyer by any chance?


  16. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    "mr.b" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.12.06.17.26.02.986325@b.com...
    > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:32:10 +0000, Unruh wrote:
    >> "mr.b" writes:
    >>>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:
    >>>> "s. keeling" writes:
    >>>>>Randy Yates :
    >>>>>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.
    >>>>
    >>>>>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>>>>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>>>>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>>>>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>>>>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    >>>> are not a real property that could be stolen.

    >>
    >>>IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    >>>connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    >>>and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    >>>stolen it?

    >>
    >> Get out your lawbooks or the laws of your country and read the definition
    >> of trespassing and of theft. You are using analogies which are usually
    >> dangerous.
    >> What the hell has sitting in Jag got to do with doing anything on a
    >> computer. Unless you are asking about someone coming into your house,
    >> taking the cover off your computer and sitting in it, your analogy is
    >> inappropriate and irrelevant.

    >
    > hmmm...I guess I'll have to simplify this for you. I have a thing and it
    > is mine, not yours. You help yourself to my thing without my permission.
    > You have stolen my thing. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Mine=not
    > yours. Law regarding unauthorised access to computers is just about
    > as clear, and as simple. My analogy was both relevant and appropriate,
    > your not so humble opinion notwithstanding. Your interpretation of real
    > property etc. appeared to me as little more than semantic dithering. Are
    > you a lawyer by any chance?


    Um ... well ... no. Your argument presumes an agreed definition of "thing",
    which is incorrect. For physical items (like, say, cars) your logic is
    correct. For something as tricky to define as access to a computer, it's
    not. This is the conundrum at the centre of the IP debate: theft is
    depriving someone else of something, not simply helping yourself to it. If I
    hack into your PC, I have not deprived you of anything, therefore I have not
    commited theft. I may commit all sorts of other evil and malicious illegal
    acts, but theft is not among them.

    CC



  17. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    "mr.b" writes:

    >On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:32:10 +0000, Unruh wrote:


    >> "mr.b" writes:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:48 +0000, Unruh wrote:

    >>
    >>>> "s. keeling" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Randy Yates :
    >>>>>> I sure hope things have changed in the last four years:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/4004
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is this still illegal? What a load of crap.
    >>>>
    >>>>>You log onto my client's computers and you're warned with a banner that
    >>>>>it's private property, your actions may be monitored and captured, and
    >>>>>anything done on the machine may become public knowledge, as in used as
    >>>>>evidence in court. If you continue and you're not authorized to do so,
    >>>>>you're trespassing and are yourself guilty of theft of communications.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, since they
    >>>> are not a real property that could be stolen.

    >>
    >>>IYHO, but I disagree IMHO. Who owns the hardware? Who pays for the
    >>>connection? If you sit down at the wheel of my Jag parked on the street,
    >>>and decide to take it for a ride without my permission, have you not
    >>>stolen it?

    >>
    >>
    >> Get out your lawbooks or the laws of your country and read the definition
    >> of trespassing and of theft. You are using analogies which are usually
    >> dangerous.
    >> What the hell has sitting in Jag got to do with doing anything on a
    >> computer. Unless you are asking about someone coming into your house,
    >> taking the cover off your computer and sitting in it, your analogy is
    >> inappropriate and irrelevant.


    >hmmm...I guess I'll have to simplify this for you. I have a thing and it
    >is mine, not yours. You help yourself to my thing without my permission.


    Problem 1. You do not have a "thing". A "thing" is tangible property- it
    can be touched, lifted.

    >You have stolen my thing. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Mine=not


    I have not stolen your "thing" since there was no thing to steal.
    s in copyright, a "thing" has the property that one and only one person can
    possess it at a time. It has premanance in time and uniqueness in space.

    >yours. Law regarding unauthorised access to computers is just about
    >as clear, and as simple. My analogy was both relevant and appropriate,
    >your not so humble opinion notwithstanding. Your interpretation of real
    >property etc. appeared to me as little more than semantic dithering. Are
    >you a lawyer by any chance?


    Why? YOu think that a lawyer talking about the law would be a bad thing,
    would get in the way or your attempt to generalise the concept of theft out
    of all recognition? No I am not. I do however attempt to use language
    precisely and recognize that analogy is not identity.
    One of the key aspects of law is its attempt at both precision and
    generality. This is to ensure that a person actually can recognize when he
    is breaking a law. If any analogy dreamt up by a prosecutor is valid, then
    all actions are illegal, since an analogy can be found ( sometimes far
    fetched) to link any activity with any law.



  18. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    mr.b wrote:
    > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:32:10 +0000, Unruh wrote:
    >
    >> "mr.b" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >> Get out your lawbooks or the laws of your country and read the definition
    >> of trespassing and of theft. You are using analogies which are usually
    >> dangerous.
    >> What the hell has sitting in Jag got to do with doing anything on a
    >> computer. Unless you are asking about someone coming into your house,
    >> taking the cover off your computer and sitting in it, your analogy is
    >> inappropriate and irrelevant.

    >
    > hmmm...I guess I'll have to simplify this for you. I have a thing and it
    > is mine, not yours. You help yourself to my thing without my permission.
    > You have stolen my thing. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Mine=not
    > yours. Law regarding unauthorised access to computers is just about
    > as clear, and as simple. My analogy was both relevant and appropriate,
    > your not so humble opinion notwithstanding. Your interpretation of real
    > property etc. appeared to me as little more than semantic dithering. Are
    > you a lawyer by any chance?
    >


    Make it a bit more specific. You have a picture on your wall. I look
    at your picture without your permission. Have I then stolen your
    picture? If not, what is the difference between using your computer
    with only trivial traces of that use left and using the picture as was
    intended? What exactly has been "stolen" in either case?

  19. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    Unruh writes:
    > [...]
    > It is not the criminal I want to defend, it is myself against people
    > who think that they can be lawyer, jury, judge and hangman for things
    > that they consider to be crimes.


    This is the problem - there are folks like you who attempt to make lines
    that are perfectly clear blurry.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
    %%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
    %%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  20. Re: Honeypots Illegal?

    Randy Yates writes:

    >Unruh writes:
    >> [...]
    >> It is not the criminal I want to defend, it is myself against people
    >> who think that they can be lawyer, jury, judge and hangman for things
    >> that they consider to be crimes.


    >This is the problem - there are folks like you who attempt to make lines
    >that are perfectly clear blurry.


    No it is you who try to make lines so broad that they encompass everything.

    Why not just have a law stating "Everything is illegal" and then leave it
    up to the prosecution to decide what to prosecute? Laws should be very
    specific.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast