Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Quadir
First of all, look up the definition of hacking.. Hacking is not illegal, it's slang for making something work for you that is not inclined to do so automatically. I'm a computer programmer. When we're in a hurry we hack things all the time... It's completely legal.. Just a little messy sometimes.
Since there was no protection on those computers and they were wide open you could even argue if Gary was in fact hacking... He made unauthorized access.
I think there's a difference between 6 months community service illegal and 60 years in a foreign jail, possibly Guantanamo illegal...
In real life: if there is no lock or notice keeping you out. Then you cannot determine if access is indeed illegal. And therefore it is not.. The owner of a real world site should make an effort to protect his site with a fence, a lock, or signs.
In cyberspace the laws are not different. Otherwise, if you enter a random IP address in your internet explorer. Then you might unknowingly break the law by making an "Unauthorized access"... In fact everyone on the web could trick you into doing so... If there is no attempt to protect the site by (for example) setting a password or placing a sign.. How would you know? You would not and therefore connecting to an open port with an appropriate client is not considered a crime.
It happened to me. I downloaded an SSH client. (Like a remote dos box) I ran it, and it had a default address. I figured it was to test drive the client like happens so often. So I connect. Next thing I know I have this screen which says that "connecting to the service" without authorization is a crime... Which I had apparently already committed...
How was I supposed to know that hitting connect would be a crime? Nobody told me. And it wasn't a crime.. To commit a crime you should at least know it is a crime. Or reasonably be able to suspect your act to be a crime.
Needless to say I disconnected. Trying to break a password I can understand IS a crime. Someone wants me to stay out, so I stay out. I'm not stupid.. But if they had not put a password there I would have effectively done a McKinnon on who knows whose site it was... And since I expected an open site to test the ssh client on I might not even have figured it out.
If I understand correctly it was not his "unauthorized access" that they used against him but the false claims that he damaged the computers he was on for a minimum of 5000 pounds... They should have asked the prosecutors to prove this. But since they were USA national security guys they did not have to prove it. Their word was enough... They say he "Intended" to damage those computers. And so that was the crime... His claims that he intended no such thing were not even heard..
The whole illegal access thing wasn't an issue to the prosecution... I think they didn't want to advertise that they didn't actually protect those computers. So they sued him on the damages but never really proved that there were in fact damages.
All you people talking about hacking and illegal access isn't even relevant to this case.
|
He hasn't even gone to trial yet, and obviously, you have not read the indictment.
Gary could get off completely, if he goes to trial.
60 years and Guantanamo are a complete exaggeration.
No "hacker" has ever gotten more than 10 years, and 95% are sentence to under 5.
Gary and some of his supporters have deliberately stretched the limits of the truth to play the sympathy card.