brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/13/84)
While it's true that proper security is the only "secure" solution to computer break-ins, can we take proposals that the laws should not be there seriously? Translate them to other forms of property.. "Laws against theft attack the symptom, not the problem. What are truly necessary are bolted doors, security patrols, guard dogs, and fully authenticated access procedures. Anybody who protects their house with something as easily breakable as glass is ASKING to be broken into. Anybody who leaves their door unlocked might as well give their property away." Yet this is the sort of attitude I see posted to the net. When I grew up we never locked our house or car unless away for a long period like a vacation. There was a much more common attitude back then that it was WRONG to invade other people's property whether it was easy or not. If you find a wallet with I.D. on the ground do you take the money just because it's easy? Now children are a different story. They are immature and don't understand this morality properly, so perhaps different conditions should apply to them. But the principles I have described above still apply fully to adults. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (12/17/84)
> While it's true that proper security is the only "secure" solution to > computer break-ins, can we take proposals that the laws should not > be there seriously? Translate them to other forms of property.. > > "Laws against theft attack the symptom, not the problem. What are truly > necessary are bolted doors, security patrols, guard dogs, and fully > authenticated access procedures. Anybody who protects their house with > something as easily breakable as glass is ASKING to be broken into. > Anybody who leaves their door unlocked might as well give their property away." I agree that computer crimes are wrong and that there should be laws concerning them. But I also think that companies with sensitive computers would be foolish to depend on laws to protect them. Would you deposit your valuables in a bank that *didn't* have an electronic burglar alarm and an impressive locking system on the vault? Would you expect insurance companies to put up with banks that transport large amounts of cash in ordinary vehicles? No. Making bank robbery a federal offense is not sufficient to prevent robberies. Similarly, I don't like the idea that TRW probably has a credit file on me that can easily be gotten to by crackers. Just as it should be a crime to break into TRW's system, it should be criminally negligent of TRW to have inadequate security precautions. -- *** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR LINE *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University
cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (12/17/84)
Brad Templeton writes : >"Laws against theft attack the symptom, not the problem. What are truly >necessary are bolted doors, security patrols, guard dogs, and fully >authenticated access procedures. Anybody who protects their house with >something as easily breakable as glass is ASKING to be broken into. >Anybody who leaves their door unlocked might as well give their property away." >Yet this is the sort of attitude I see posted to the net. When I grew up >we never locked our house or car unless away for a long period like >a vacation. There was a much more common attitude back then that it was >WRONG to invade other people's property whether it was easy or not. If you >find a wallet with I.D. on the ground do you take the money just because >it's easy? > Now children are a different story. They are immature and don't understand As I see it, it would not make sense to leave a bank unlocked and unprotected after hours, or a toy store. The computer systems most often broken into are not "private" systems, but rather "business" systems. Wouldn't it be a bit dreary to break into someones IBM PC and steal their recipie(sp?) file? It has historically been true that if you heard a modem tone on the answering line that you were listening to some big and intriguing computer. However these days, and even more so in the future, you will probably be listening to someones home computer. When that is the case, all computers will benefit since random modem seeking programs will not be nearly as effective if they return 150 phone numbers rather than say 10. The effort needed to find a computer will exceed the threshold of many password hackers and the problem will be reduced. A perfectly clever way to hide your modem from these guys is to have you phone answered by an answering machine that talks for a while >30 sec and then kicks in the modem, most search programs will have long since given up. --Chuck -- - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - {ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/19/84)
In article <2745@ncsu.UUCP> mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) writes: >>... who leaves their door unlocked might as well give their property away. > >I agree that computer crimes are wrong and that there should be laws >concerning them. But I also think that companies with sensitive computers >would be foolish to depend on laws to protect them. ... >Just as it should be a crime to break into TRW's system, it should >be criminally negligent of TRW to have inadequate security precautions. > >Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University Hear! Hear! I am willing to offer my services as an expert witness to anyone who wants to bring suit against TRW Credit or any similar organization on grounds of negligence for failing to provide adequate computer security measures. This includes banks, insurance companies, major retail organizations, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co., oil companies, credit card companies, e.g., VISA, and others. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (12/23/84)
I heard that somewhere up north one of the big phone companies (I know I know but it was a while ago) is testing a system where you can see the number that's calling you before you answer he phone. You can also cause certain numbers to be automatically screened out. If someone has an unlisted number, it won't show, but for $3 you can call a phone company number immediately and get an in- stant trace. This setup has obvious implications for computers on modems. Once widely implemented, it will virtually eliminate phone line hack- ing. Sean Casey "Engineers...they just LOVE to change things."
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (12/25/84)
> I heard that somewhere up north one of the big phone companies. . . > is testing a system where you can see the number that's calling you > before you answer he phone. . . This setup has obvious implications > for computers on modems. Once widely implemented, it will virtually > eliminate phone line hacking. I guess they've yet to get public phones up north. -- ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado (301) 496-5688 DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks