3 ms·

because phreaking/hacking didn't pay my bills. This is what kills most adventures in hacking. And I think you're right, we're already seeing a resurgence in th

by eksith 14y ago

because phreaking/hacking didn't pay my bills. This is what kills most adventures in hacking. And I think you're right, we're already seeing a resurgence in that burner cellphones are already becoming commonplace, although a lot of that is in the blackmarket and sadly being used for criminal activity than just to satiate curiosity. An old friend of mine got a visit by AT&T technicians when they detected funny activity on his dad's line and I think he had to pay a $100 fine or something. Today, if he was doing the same things, he likely would be in jail. The legal atmosphere has turned toward disproportionate punishment so much so that the only people exploring the wireless field, by and large, are those who are dodging jail time to begin with. I think the Raspberry Pi and Arduino field may be more enticing for young people due to their hacker-friendly nature and I feel wireless mesh technology may be where the future of communications hacking will be.

Stratoscope 14y ago
> An old friend of mine got a visit by AT&T technicians when they detected funny activity on his dad's line and I think he had to pay a $100 fine or something. Sounds familiar. I got busted for phreaking in 1972. Pled no contest, paid a $450 lawyer's fee, $150 fine, and $25 restitution to AT&T. Afterward, the AT&T investigators took me out to lunch at my favorite Chinese restaurant. No, they didn't try to get me to name other notorious phreaks so they could go after them. They seemed to have genuinely felt bad that the whole legal apparatus had to get involved. Yes, perhaps a little different from today.
- eksith 14y ago
  They sound like a bunch of stand up guys. My, how times have changed. In a sad way, all the TOS/EULA/Contracts and other legal mumbo jumbo we sign away our rights with are just more nails in the coffin of free expression and exploration. Now, I can understand companies get upset if you take more than a fair share of services without paying for it, but we don't really get a fair share in the first place. And if you break the TOS (provided it hasn't changed since you signed up), it's fair to lose the service, but not your freedom.
  - lowglow 14y ago
    This is a big concern for me. I think we're really hitting kids/teens too hard for hacking. I'll be chatting a bit about this on Techendo this week. I'm not sure I know what's best, or how to deal with malicious vs. non-malicious hacking. B&E is B&E no matter if they broke in and left, or just broke in and stole things, right?
    - eksith 14y ago
      Define "breaking". That's the key here, how does copying something without doing damage to the system (I.E. deleting files, leaving backdoors etc...) be treated the same as, let's say you walk into an unlocked office, stick an open folder's worth of files into a copy machine (also located in the office, I.E. cp, mv) and leave without taking the original folder's contents. At worse, it could be trespass since entering is not disputed, but then the website/portal/office or what have you, should clearly mark which areas are verboten to unauthorized personnel and what exactly "unauthorized" means. Does "unauthorized" mean you don't have any permission to view or copy at all? Does it mean, you have permission to view, but not copy? Does it mean you have permission to copy, but not a whole lot at the same time? Does it mean you can copy to your heart's desire, but not redistribute? Does it mean you can redistribute, but not edit? Breaking and entering isn't applicable as-is to the virtual world. Law makers need a completely different mindset to approach information security.
- taproot 14y ago
  What did you talk about over lunch, would have loved to hear that conversation.

by eksith 14y ago

Stratoscope 14y ago

> An old friend of mine got a visit by AT&T technicians when they detected funny activity on his dad's line and I think he had to pay a $100 fine or something. Sounds familiar. I got busted for phreaking in 1972. Pled no contest, paid a $450 lawyer's fee, $150 fine, and $25 restitution to AT&T. Afterward, the AT&T investigators took me out to lunch at my favorite Chinese restaurant. No, they didn't try to get me to name other notorious phreaks so they could go after them. They seemed to have genuinely felt bad that the whole legal apparatus had to get involved. Yes, perhaps a little different from today.

eksith 14y ago
They sound like a bunch of stand up guys. My, how times have changed. In a sad way, all the TOS/EULA/Contracts and other legal mumbo jumbo we sign away our rights with are just more nails in the coffin of free expression and exploration. Now, I can understand companies get upset if you take more than a fair share of services without paying for it, but we don't really get a fair share in the first place. And if you break the TOS (provided it hasn't changed since you signed up), it's fair to lose the service, but not your freedom.
- lowglow 14y ago
  This is a big concern for me. I think we're really hitting kids/teens too hard for hacking. I'll be chatting a bit about this on Techendo this week. I'm not sure I know what's best, or how to deal with malicious vs. non-malicious hacking. B&E is B&E no matter if they broke in and left, or just broke in and stole things, right?
  - eksith 14y ago
    Define "breaking". That's the key here, how does copying something without doing damage to the system (I.E. deleting files, leaving backdoors etc...) be treated the same as, let's say you walk into an unlocked office, stick an open folder's worth of files into a copy machine (also located in the office, I.E. cp, mv) and leave without taking the original folder's contents. At worse, it could be trespass since entering is not disputed, but then the website/portal/office or what have you, should clearly mark which areas are verboten to unauthorized personnel and what exactly "unauthorized" means. Does "unauthorized" mean you don't have any permission to view or copy at all? Does it mean, you have permission to view, but not copy? Does it mean you have permission to copy, but not a whole lot at the same time? Does it mean you can copy to your heart's desire, but not redistribute? Does it mean you can redistribute, but not edit? Breaking and entering isn't applicable as-is to the virtual world. Law makers need a completely different mindset to approach information security.
taproot 14y ago
What did you talk about over lunch, would have loved to hear that conversation.