Shaun Dewberry wrote: > This depends on your definition of "hacking" and whether you obtained that > perception from the media or from MIT. My definition of hacker does not > involve destruction of property or harm to any person. A basic definition of > 'hacker' is an inherently curious, computer literate person, having a > special interest in computer security. What you seem to be talking about is > a computer criminal. These are two entirely different entities. Please don't > bundle hackers with criminals. Pardon me but "your" definition of hacking is not what is in question here. It is the governments. What everyone seems to missing here is that the bill leaves the definition of "hacking vs cracking" up to the prosecution. Then there is the idea of proving "intent." If you are reported, and you have a box brimming with the tools of the trade, the "intent" is really not that hard to prove. You "more than likely" try to break into systems with the tools that you have. Here is another scenario that I have yet to see put forth. What if you are contracted to do a pen-test on a group of IP addresses - complete with a full release and authorization. The company supplies you with all the IP addresses but one or two of them are not the correct IP, they belong to some other entity. The intent was to try to break into the systems - that is a given. The other company turns you in. Who is going to come to your defense? Do you have an iron clad guarantee of that for the past, present and future? What if you are terminated shortly after the pen-test? Are they still going to defend you at some future time? Have any of us here done this sort of thing for a previous employer, will they defend you against the government? The Law landscape is rapidly changing _world_wide. Australia passed similar laws just a few weeks ago. Don't think for a minute that other nations will not follow. Toby
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 17 2001 - 11:25:36 PDT