4 ms·

> It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read m

> It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read my mail regardless of whether I locked the door that morning or not. I'm not losing any sleep over this particular leak, just saying, what I quoted is probably their beef.

angersock 15y ago
I mean, that's an interesting question, right? I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If I burned your letter, I've absolutely committed a wrong, but I didn't do that. If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Could the same not be said for having windows made of glass? You did not build your entire house of steel and deadbolt locks, so you have allowed this possibility and therefore I am entitled to come into your house.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  That may be true, but most jurisdictions recognize an inherent right to physical privacy which isn't lost based on how securely the premises are sealed. So, the truly problematic part is the trespassing and/or burglary (illicitly entering a building, regardless of destruction or theft of property, meets the test). The law around extracting information from a physical place is something I don't really know about. But either way, we have a parallel in the unlawful access of shit that isn't yours.
- noahc 15y ago
  You're argument is essentially the "She deserved to be raped" argument. I understand that your argument is a bit more nuanced than this because of the idea of harm you introduced. But at it's simpliest core you argue that "Hey, you made it easier and the possibility exists..." It's the same way with rape. "Hey she was wearing a short skirt and was drunk, the possibility exists." We should be able to to agree that because I make something easier for you to do that doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it. If you want to have this debate it shouldn't be about the ease of which someone allows another to take a particular action. Instead, we should debate about if we believe we should secure in papers and from who. In a world in which non-political actors have more power than political actors that's an interesting question!
  - figgles 15y ago
    Well, let's see. If you're a hot chick, drunk as hell, staggering around in the dark alleys of a big city in the bad part of town, you should at least be less surprised that it is rape-o-clock.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  > I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If you opened mail from my physical mailbox, you'd have committed the federal crime of mail tampering, which faces a fine and/or jail time. If you opened 3.3 million letters from my mail box, you'd probably be the first person to live the remainder of their life in jail for mail tampering... regardless of your age. My mail is stored in an easily accessible box at the end of my driveway. If it has any form of lock, you're committing a much more serious crime. When you're hacking into a passworded system to steal email, your crime should be treated with just severity. Not only should it be regarded as committing a federal crime, but there should be charges for breaking the lock too (I'm against the DMCA's whole copyright circumvention bullshit, because it hurts the little guy. But no protection against email fraud hurts the little guy.) > If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim. If I fail to lock my door, it's still immoral to enter my property and steal everything. Just as it's immoral to enter my unlockable mailbox and steal my mail. If you don't find it immoral for someone else to read your mail then honestly you should have no qualms with posting the entire contents of all your email addresses online for us to scrutinize as well. If there's no immorality about stealing a corporations emails, containing hundreds or thousands of peoples personal emails and information then you should have no morality problems about HN trawling your own emails. Regardless of if I lock my door or not, I have a right not to have my property looted. Regardless of if I use a strong or weak password for my email, I have the right to not have my property looted. My problem with this world is people like you, who will be the first to scream fucking murder when some trivial wrong happens to you but you claim everyone else has no moral claim for not doing everything you deem appropriate. Get off your fucking high horse and learn the god damn definition of morals because at least knowing the definition might help you find a set. I'm giving myself a 99% chance of being down voted, but put your money where your mouth is. I want to see your goddamn emails.
  - angersock 15y ago
    If you opened mail from my physical mailbox, you'd have committed the federal crime of mail tampering, which faces a fine and/or jail time. If you opened 3.3 million letters from my mail box, you'd probably be the first person to live the remainder of their life in jail for mail tampering... regardless of your age. Right, yes, it's illegal, but that's more an accident of legislature than anything else. Don't pretend that that gives it moral explanatory power one way or the other. If I fail to lock my door, it's still immoral to enter my property and steal everything. Just as it's immoral to enter my unlockable mailbox and steal my mail. I agree that theft resulting in exclusion of your access to your resources is very much unethical--copying mail does not result in this exclusion of access. If you don't find it immoral for someone else to read your mail then honestly you should have no qualms with posting the entire contents of all your email addresses online for us to scrutinize as well. I don't have to find it immoral; giving away that information freely is an act of charity I do not believe myself morally obligated to perform. Were you to come across it otherwise, I'd be a bit annoyed (as I would have to update various authentication mechanisms), but I wouldn't believe I ought to jail you or fine you or the like. I make a bet, everyday, that the relative security of my systems is adequate for my needs. Some days I'm right, some days I'm wrong, and I bear no ill will for somebody that authenticates as me to that system--clearly, the error was in the system's scope and construction. My problem with this world is people like you, who will be the first to scream fucking murder when some trivial wrong happens to you but you claim everyone else has no moral claim for not doing everything you deem appropriate. Get off your fucking high horse and learn the god damn definition of morals because at least knowing the definition might help you find a set. I'm giving myself a 99% chance of being down voted, but put your money where your mouth is. I want to see your goddamn emails. You know, if I could do so without giving away authentication credentials for other things, I would. That said, the cost-benefit isn't there. As I pointed out above, I don't have any moral obligation to provide you with information--if you gather on your own, hell, that's your business. As long as only copying has occurred, what does it matter?
- nl 15y ago
  If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim. Regardless of your argument, that's not what happened here. They broke into the (secured) Stratfor servers, then decrypted the email using a key they stole. At best the real analogy is picking the lock on your house, taking your spare car key and then stealing your car. The whole "but nothing was destroyed" argument is a whole other argument, but equally as weak. The fact that exclusive access information has value has been long established, and there are numerous precedents in the physical world showing it. The best example is someone breaking into a commercial office, gaining access to private commercial documents which they can use in negotiations. Clearly harm has been done, as it has in this case.
  - angersock 15y ago
    The whole "but nothing was destroyed" argument is a whole other argument, but equally as weak. The fact that exclusive access information has value has been long established, and there are numerous precedents in the physical world showing it. The best example is someone breaking into a commercial office, gaining access to private commercial documents which they can use in negotiations. Clearly harm has been done, as it has in this case. So, lost profits due to being in a worse bargaining position is hardly a "harm". The company in question can either go through the negotiations in a weaker position, or they can walk away from the table. This is a case of better matching the (true) price of sale for the seller and consumer. Ignorance is what allows large profits to be made, and as far as I recall unrealized profits shouldn't be claimed as harms.
    - nl 15y ago
      So, lost profits due to being in a worse bargaining position is hardly a "harm". You might not agree, but there is plenty of case law against you. If you don't like that example, there are plenty of others showing the value of private information regardless of its destruction (for example, there is a whole genre of entertainment build around the spy novel|film). The real issue is the fact you disagree with that, and are presenting your opinion as fact.

angersock 15y ago

I mean, that's an interesting question, right? I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If I burned your letter, I've absolutely committed a wrong, but I didn't do that. If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim.

earbitscom 15y ago
Could the same not be said for having windows made of glass? You did not build your entire house of steel and deadbolt locks, so you have allowed this possibility and therefore I am entitled to come into your house.
danilocampos 15y ago
That may be true, but most jurisdictions recognize an inherent right to physical privacy which isn't lost based on how securely the premises are sealed. So, the truly problematic part is the trespassing and/or burglary (illicitly entering a building, regardless of destruction or theft of property, meets the test). The law around extracting information from a physical place is something I don't really know about. But either way, we have a parallel in the unlawful access of shit that isn't yours.
noahc 15y ago
You're argument is essentially the "She deserved to be raped" argument. I understand that your argument is a bit more nuanced than this because of the idea of harm you introduced. But at it's simpliest core you argue that "Hey, you made it easier and the possibility exists..." It's the same way with rape. "Hey she was wearing a short skirt and was drunk, the possibility exists." We should be able to to agree that because I make something easier for you to do that doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it. If you want to have this debate it shouldn't be about the ease of which someone allows another to take a particular action. Instead, we should debate about if we believe we should secure in papers and from who. In a world in which non-political actors have more power than political actors that's an interesting question!
- figgles 15y ago
  Well, let's see. If you're a hot chick, drunk as hell, staggering around in the dark alleys of a big city in the bad part of town, you should at least be less surprised that it is rape-o-clock.
electromagnetic 15y ago
> I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If you opened mail from my physical mailbox, you'd have committed the federal crime of mail tampering, which faces a fine and/or jail time. If you opened 3.3 million letters from my mail box, you'd probably be the first person to live the remainder of their life in jail for mail tampering... regardless of your age. My mail is stored in an easily accessible box at the end of my driveway. If it has any form of lock, you're committing a much more serious crime. When you're hacking into a passworded system to steal email, your crime should be treated with just severity. Not only should it be regarded as committing a federal crime, but there should be charges for breaking the lock too (I'm against the DMCA's whole copyright circumvention bullshit, because it hurts the little guy. But no protection against email fraud hurts the little guy.) > If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim. If I fail to lock my door, it's still immoral to enter my property and steal everything. Just as it's immoral to enter my unlockable mailbox and steal my mail. If you don't find it immoral for someone else to read your mail then honestly you should have no qualms with posting the entire contents of all your email addresses online for us to scrutinize as well. If there's no immorality about stealing a corporations emails, containing hundreds or thousands of peoples personal emails and information then you should have no morality problems about HN trawling your own emails. Regardless of if I lock my door or not, I have a right not to have my property looted. Regardless of if I use a strong or weak password for my email, I have the right to not have my property looted. My problem with this world is people like you, who will be the first to scream fucking murder when some trivial wrong happens to you but you claim everyone else has no moral claim for not doing everything you deem appropriate. Get off your fucking high horse and learn the god damn definition of morals because at least knowing the definition might help you find a set. I'm giving myself a 99% chance of being down voted, but put your money where your mouth is. I want to see your goddamn emails.
- angersock 15y ago
  If you opened mail from my physical mailbox, you'd have committed the federal crime of mail tampering, which faces a fine and/or jail time. If you opened 3.3 million letters from my mail box, you'd probably be the first person to live the remainder of their life in jail for mail tampering... regardless of your age. Right, yes, it's illegal, but that's more an accident of legislature than anything else. Don't pretend that that gives it moral explanatory power one way or the other. If I fail to lock my door, it's still immoral to enter my property and steal everything. Just as it's immoral to enter my unlockable mailbox and steal my mail. I agree that theft resulting in exclusion of your access to your resources is very much unethical--copying mail does not result in this exclusion of access. If you don't find it immoral for someone else to read your mail then honestly you should have no qualms with posting the entire contents of all your email addresses online for us to scrutinize as well. I don't have to find it immoral; giving away that information freely is an act of charity I do not believe myself morally obligated to perform. Were you to come across it otherwise, I'd be a bit annoyed (as I would have to update various authentication mechanisms), but I wouldn't believe I ought to jail you or fine you or the like. I make a bet, everyday, that the relative security of my systems is adequate for my needs. Some days I'm right, some days I'm wrong, and I bear no ill will for somebody that authenticates as me to that system--clearly, the error was in the system's scope and construction. My problem with this world is people like you, who will be the first to scream fucking murder when some trivial wrong happens to you but you claim everyone else has no moral claim for not doing everything you deem appropriate. Get off your fucking high horse and learn the god damn definition of morals because at least knowing the definition might help you find a set. I'm giving myself a 99% chance of being down voted, but put your money where your mouth is. I want to see your goddamn emails. You know, if I could do so without giving away authentication credentials for other things, I would. That said, the cost-benefit isn't there. As I pointed out above, I don't have any moral obligation to provide you with information--if you gather on your own, hell, that's your business. As long as only copying has occurred, what does it matter?
nl 15y ago
If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim. Regardless of your argument, that's not what happened here. They broke into the (secured) Stratfor servers, then decrypted the email using a key they stole. At best the real analogy is picking the lock on your house, taking your spare car key and then stealing your car. The whole "but nothing was destroyed" argument is a whole other argument, but equally as weak. The fact that exclusive access information has value has been long established, and there are numerous precedents in the physical world showing it. The best example is someone breaking into a commercial office, gaining access to private commercial documents which they can use in negotiations. Clearly harm has been done, as it has in this case.
- angersock 15y ago
  The whole "but nothing was destroyed" argument is a whole other argument, but equally as weak. The fact that exclusive access information has value has been long established, and there are numerous precedents in the physical world showing it. The best example is someone breaking into a commercial office, gaining access to private commercial documents which they can use in negotiations. Clearly harm has been done, as it has in this case. So, lost profits due to being in a worse bargaining position is hardly a "harm". The company in question can either go through the negotiations in a weaker position, or they can walk away from the table. This is a case of better matching the (true) price of sale for the seller and consumer. Ignorance is what allows large profits to be made, and as far as I recall unrealized profits shouldn't be claimed as harms.
  - nl 15y ago
    So, lost profits due to being in a worse bargaining position is hardly a "harm". You might not agree, but there is plenty of case law against you. If you don't like that example, there are plenty of others showing the value of private information regardless of its destruction (for example, there is a whole genre of entertainment build around the spy novel|film). The real issue is the fact you disagree with that, and are presenting your opinion as fact.