3 ms·

> companies should face equal culpability to criminal hackers in attacks. That's an interesting idea, and I think I agree with you in spirit. But don't most ha

> companies should face equal culpability to criminal hackers in attacks. That's an interesting idea, and I think I agree with you in spirit. But don't most hacking-related criminal charges boil down to "unauthorized access to a computer"? It would be hard to argue that the company that owns the computers has unauthorized access. Maybe a better phraseology would be to say that the company is an accomplice to the hacker. For that to really hold up, I think you would need to show that the company was negligent or not keeping up with security best practices.

indigochill 6y ago
> It would be hard to argue that the company that owns the computers has unauthorized access. That's not the way I'd argue. I'd say the company has authorized access and they then gave access to fraudsters who should not have been given access to the system, which is where they were aiding the fraud. So they aren't the principal offender, but they did aid in the offence which is what I'm suggesting makes them an accomplice (although as another paulpauper points out, an accomplice has to be aware they're aiding a crime - being duped isn't a crime).