3 ms·

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 rig

by 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.

by eksith 14y ago

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.