trivedi@motcid.UUCP (Kamlesh Trivedi) (10/03/90)
I have read some posts here and the articles in c.u.d that try to preserve the label hacker. I think it's a lost cause. Yesterday's _Nova_ on Cliff Stoll's story proves it. The popular media has "latched" onto the term and are indiscriminately using it to mean: an individual who breaks into corporate/ government computers and maliciously changes things. Stoll and the "hackers" from Germany referred to the activities of the Germans as "hacking" not as "intruding", "espionage", etc. I just keep thinking of the time Wozniak was on _Nightline_ talking about how he wanted his kids to grow up to be like the hackers he was seeing in '83. -- Kamlesh Trivedi - ...!uunet!motcid!trivedik - My opinions not Motorola's "Since everyone knows me, everything I do now is newsworthy. I'm a cultural icon." - Calvin 10/2
howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) (10/03/90)
In article <4761@bone25.UUCP>, trivedi@motcid.UUCP (Kamlesh Trivedi) writes: |> I have read some posts here and the articles in c.u.d that try to preserve the |> label hacker. I think it's a lost cause. Yesterday's _Nova_ on Cliff Stoll's |> story proves it. The popular media has "latched" onto the term and are |> indiscriminately using it to mean: an individual who breaks into corporate/ |> government computers and maliciously changes things. Stoll and the "hackers" |> from Germany referred to the activities of the Germans as "hacking" not as |> "intruding", "espionage", etc. I was also disappointed in the way the show completely ignored privacy issues, both for the "hacker" and for the other users. Stoll was shown making printouts of login sessions, tapping phone lines, and so on, without any mention whatsoever that there might be other ethical issues involved than "get the bad guy at all costs". I expect gibberish from the mainstream press, but Nova usually displays higher standards. For those who haven't yet seen it, the title of the show is "The KGB, the computer, and me". With regard to the word hacker, we should distinguish between its use in jargon and its use by mainstream society. Can the word continue to hold the meanings we know and love, even while being distorted by outsiders? Other words mean very different things in jargon and in everyday usage, but does it make a difference that the word "hacker" is so emotionally charged? -- Louis Howell "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit. "A major navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate calculations. Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/04/90)
In article <69148@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) writes: > I was also disappointed in the way the show completely ignored privacy > issues, both for the "hacker" and for the other users. Stoll was shown > making printouts of login sessions, tapping phone lines, and so on, > without any mention whatsoever that there might be other ethical issues > involved than "get the bad guy at all costs". I expect gibberish from > the mainstream press, but Nova usually displays higher standards. Be serious. There are lots of legal issues involved, but it's perfectly ethical for (e.g.) a corporation to videotape an employee in the hall if they suspect that he's been stealing things, trying office doors other than his own, etc. Do you see the analogy? Sure, Stoll made printouts of every dial-in session; the corporation makes videotapes of everybody in the hall. It's just not possible to selectively record an event if you don't know when that event happens. Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? ---Dan
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/04/90)
In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > What's wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? I believe Epson America is going to find out in court, real soon now. They had a manager who read all of his employee's email, including mail with rude comments about the manager that the employees thought was confidential. Next they'll be putting videocameras in the bathrooms and a bug by the water cooler. Catching criminals at any cost if often at odds with privacy. Here's another case. -- "Restraint, hell. I'm just too fucking busy." -- Bill Wisner
TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM (10/04/90)
brnstnd@KRAMDEN.ACF.NYU.EDU(Dan Bernstein) writes: >>Be serious. There are lots of legal issues involved, but it's perfectly >>ethical for (e.g.) a corporation to videotape an employee in the hall if >>they suspect that he's been stealing things, trying office doors other >>than his own, etc. Do you see the analogy? You'll have to explain the analogy to some of us denser folk. There's a rather significant difference between authorized security folks in a corporation spying on employees and individual employees acting as vigilantes spying. The NOVA program did not address this hardly subtle difference. >>Sure, Stoll made printouts of every dial-in session; the corporation >>makes videotapes of everybody in the hall. It's just not possible to >>selectively record an event if you don't know when that event happens. >>Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. >>The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's >>wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? Employers have no right to tap phone lines. There is both a technological and a legal difference between "tapping" and simple in-house monitoring. Further, as Stoll notes in his book, he did not have authorization for much of this activity. Nova failed to address these distinctions. The similarities between Stoll's behavior and the hacker(s) he was pursuing were ignored, and Nova treated the chase uncritically. Many of us have been critical of Stoll's a-moral chase and contemptuous of his irresponsible and one-sided depiction of "hackers." Some of us had second thoughts about the stridency of our critiques. One mark of intellectual maturity is the ability to reflect on past behavior and use the wisdom of this reflection to develop deeper understandings and insights into the world around us. Judging from the Nova program, it appears that Stoll has remains mired in the self-righteousness of his quest, and neither he nor the producers of Nova seem to recognize the affinity he and his quarry have in common: The obsessive games of both led to violations of privacy, ethics, and perhaps the law. Is it really permissible for Stoll to "appropriate" equipment and have Nova portray it as a semi-comedic scene? Is there really any difference between Stoll's "social engineering" to obtain numbers? How could Nova so glibly pass over the issue of privacy by making it seem a 'crime' that telecom people in one state wouldn't give out information on a phone line because the warrant wasn't good for that state? A few months ago I was feeling quite badly for the tone of a review I had written about Cuckoo's Egg. However, after seeing Nova, one wonders why Stoll seems to have learned virtually nothing from the critiques of his work? Anybody know if he got paid for the program, and if so, how much??
josef@nixpbe.UUCP (Moellers) (10/04/90)
In <69148@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) writes: [stuff deleted] >With regard to the word hacker, we should distinguish between its use >in jargon and its use by mainstream society. Can the word continue to >hold the meanings we know and love, even while being distorted by >outsiders? Other words mean very different things in jargon and in >everyday usage, but does it make a difference that the word "hacker" >is so emotionally charged? I doubt You can keep on distinguishing, lest society will look upon all of us "hackers" as being criminals. Imagine You wanted to say that You are quite happy and said, e.g. in a newletter: Coputer user's are gay! When I learned English some 24 years ago, "gay" meant "happy". And look what it means today! I think we should be carefull in using the term "hacker" unless society sort of forgets it's bad second meaning. -- | Josef Moellers | c/o Siemens Nixdorf Informatonssysteme AG | | USA: mollers.pad@nixdorf.com | Abt. PXD-S14 | | !USA: mollers.pad@nixdorf.de | Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring | | Phone: (+49) 5251 104662 | D-4790 Paderborn |
kehoe@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (Brendan Kehoe) (10/04/90)
In <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu writes: >Be serious. There are lots of legal issues involved, but it's perfectly >ethical for (e.g.) a corporation to videotape an employee in the hall if >they suspect that he's been stealing things, trying office doors other >than his own, etc. Do you see the analogy? > >Sure, Stoll made printouts of every dial-in session; the corporation >makes videotapes of everybody in the hall. It's just not possible to >selectively record an event if you don't know when that event happens. This doesn't quite ring true with me. Sure, a company might pay closer attention to an employee that's suspected of that -- but they wouldn't have *every* employee tailed, or install cameras in *every* employee's cubicle. What Stoll did could make a dangerous precedent if opinions like this grow too wide-spread. Your analogy fails on the fact that the people logging in and out and subsequently getting printed out were doing their own work in what they assumed was a 'private' session. What if they were doing some research or programming that they didn't want seen by anyone (save root) until it was time to have it released? Many corporate entities are well acquainted with the problem of information being disseminated before they planned. >Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. >The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's >wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? They videotape the HALL -- they don't videotape the offices. Brendan Kehoe | Soon: brendan@cs.widener.edu [ Oct 16 they say; tune in & see ] For now: kehoe@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu | Also: brendan.kehoe@cyber.widener.edu "I've tried to forget you, but my Calvins won't let me." "Oh PuhLEEZ."
wv@cbnews.att.com (william.e.duncan) (10/04/90)
In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > > Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. > The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's > wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? Isn't recording a phone conversation without the other party's knowledge of it illegal? One would have to determine whether recording a "computer" conversation isn't illegal, also. Bill Duncan bill@picard.att.com
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (10/05/90)
In <1990Oct4.031131.2296@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >> What's wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? >I believe Epson America is going to find out in court, real soon now. >They had a manager who read all of his employee's email, including >mail with rude comments about the manager that the employees thought >was confidential. My understanding of employment/labor law is that employees have almost no legitimate expectation of privacy in the workplace. Unless Epson created such an expectation, there just wasn't any such thing as "private" mail on the system installed, operated, and paid for by the company for company business. Whether there was a moral expectation of privacy is another issue, one which I think is much more favorable to the employee, but . . . . It's too bad that Ms. Shoar's case is "cluttered" with the employer/employee problem, since I think all of us agree that we need some good judicial precedent and construction of email privacy rights. (A final note. I may be wrong, but I thought the supervisor ran across the email while looking into some trouble with the system, as opposed to "eavesdropping," but I may be wrong on this.) -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | "I've been going to school for riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | so long that it ought to be mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | obvious they can't teach me and Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet | therefore aren't responsible."
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (10/05/90)
niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >You'll have to explain the analogy to some of us denser folk. There's a >rather significant difference between authorized security folks in a >corporation spying on employees and individual employees acting as vigilantes >spying. The NOVA program did not address this hardly subtle difference. You're being much too hard on Cliff Stoll, and you seem to be forgetting the other side of his story. There is a vast difference between accessing such private information and using it (both legally and ethically), is there not? Did Stoll use information which authorized users considered private? He was responsible for the security of the LBL computer in question. The users of that machine must vest in him their trust, because sooner or later, as a system administrator, he will come across sensitive information, be it in mail bounces, or with files in the lost+found, etc. The key moral test is whether or not he takes advantage of that information. More importantly, Cliff Stoll was attempting to protect the privacy of those individuals whose accounts were being compromised by the intruder (and not just at LBL). So it sounds to me that Cliff did his job. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) (10/05/90)
In article <Oct.4.10.48.14.1990.29551@turbo.bio.net>, lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: |> You're being much too hard on Cliff Stoll, and you seem to be |> forgetting the other side of his story. |> |> There is a vast difference between accessing such private information |> and using it (both legally and ethically), is there not? Did Stoll |> use information which authorized users considered private? He was I would not say that Stoll actually did anything wrong; for one thing, I don't have enough information to make any kind of valid assessment. What I do find troubling, however, is that the Nova program did not even consider the ethical questions to be worthy of comment. There ARE ethical questions involved when people start tapping in to supposedly private communications. Maybe Stoll was justified, maybe he wasn't. (Personally, I think most if not all of his actions WERE reasonable.) That doesn't mean that Nova should have just ignored the issue, though. -- Louis Howell "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit. "A major navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate calculations. Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/05/90)
In article <185@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: > Further, > as Stoll notes in his book, he did not have authorization for much of this > activity. That's a good point. However, you don't need authorization to carry out your job duties; and presumably Stoll's duties as a system manager could have been interpreted to include monitoring Hess's activities. In fact, I get the impression from the book that his boss made exactly that interpretation. It's always a judgment call... > Nova failed to address these distinctions. The similarities between > Stoll's behavior and the hacker(s) he was pursuing were ignored, and Nova > treated the chase uncritically. What similarities are you talking about? That they both recorded the sessions---on computers Stoll was responsible for? That they both used computers? That they both breathe? Come on. ---Dan
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/05/90)
In article <30571@netnews.upenn.edu> kehoe@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes: > This doesn't quite ring true with me. Sure, a company might pay closer > attention to an employee that's suspected of that -- but they wouldn't have > *every* employee tailed, or install cameras in *every* employee's cubicle. That's true. They'd try to record only as much as would reasonably cover where they expected the criminal to go. That's exactly what Stoll did. ---Dan
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct04.173551.606@hoss.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > Whether there was a moral expectation of privacy is another issue, one > which I think is much more favorable to the employee, but . . . . True. And the balance swings way back in favor of the machine's owner when the owner suspects criminal activity on the part of the employee. In Stoll's case, the criminal wasn't even an employee, so I don't know how he could expect any privacy at all. It wasn't possible to print out (or locate) his sessions without also printing out other 1200-baud sessions; it's like the cop responding to a cry for help and accidentally discovering a crime in progress. ---Dan
tenney@well.sf.ca.us (Glenn S. Tenney) (10/05/90)
In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > ... >Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. >The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's >wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? In California, it is illegal to record a telephone conversation unless a notification (that "beep" every x seconds) is made to (if I recall correctly) *both* parties of the conversation. This hasn't, to my knowledge, been tested with data calls. That's what's wrong with recording phone calls and tapping lines. It is interesting, but that's why our country has laws -- protecting people from "the end justifies the means" approach. How different would it be if this had been voice calls? Glenn Tenney p.s. Every time I heard Cliff use the word "hacker" as if the word equated "criminal"reminded me of a thing my kid said when he saw a slanted news piece about The Hackers Conference --> Why did they say *that*, we're not criminals?
bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg) (10/05/90)
In article <20959@well.sf.ca.us> tenney@well.sf.ca.us (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: >p.s. > >Every time I heard Cliff use the word "hacker" as if the word equated >"criminal"reminded me of a thing my kid said when he saw a slanted >news piece about The Hackers Conference --> Why did they say >*that*, we're not criminals? I remember reading a good putdown somewhere... so-and-so "likes to get his labels on straight." Remember, the Nova episode (and the book?) was a dramatization. To my dad, who is "digiphobic" in the extreme, Cliff Stoll >and< the Germans were all hackers. The use of the label depends upon who's using it. I do feel that Nova fell into the habit that some film-makers have, of introducing a protagonist portrayed in an unrealistic light, so as to make the protagonist's fight more black and white. -- Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc. cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837
mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) (10/06/90)
|> In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: |> > |> > Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. |> > The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's |> > wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? I'm not even sure why this thread exists...Stoll was monitoring **the serial port** of a **computer he was responsible for**. (note that Stoll was on the other side of the modems...) The issues raised here seems to be, "In the absence of an explicit policy or law(s) concerning privacy, is there an *implicit* right to privacy granted the users of a given service (computer, or other)?" and "Given the above, are unauthorized users protected?" ---- Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF |"Coffee for my breakfast, whiskey by the side The Good mbrown@osf.org | it's a dark and gloomy mornin', The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| gonna rain outside, outside --- The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | ...and the forecast calls for pain."
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (10/06/90)
>Isn't recording a phone conversation without the other party's >knowledge of it illegal? One would have to determine whether >recording a "computer" conversation isn't illegal, also. Gak. I would not even entertain the concept of a separate ruling on a "computer" conversation. Computers don't have conversations, people do, even if both ends were computer initiated it's *people's* privacy that can get violated. The (voice) phone system itself is largely digital, would this reasoning lead us to believe that at the point it becomes digital it's somehow "just a computer conversation" and might lose its legal rights? The whole thing is a semantic minefield. I realize a lot of people have negative knee-jerk reactions to this sort of thing, but something we may have to strive to do is take back the language. If they take it from you they've got you. Look at what happened to the Hacker's Conference a few years back, the whole negative incident was purely semantic. The conference was named back when "hacker" had a positive connotation, and never changed in spirit. But the word did, so suddenly some people read it as some sort of terrorist's meeting or something, and there was some trouble. Purely semantic. Don't even admit the phrase "computer phone conversation". If someone does just look at them with blank affect and ask if artificial intelligence has really gotten that far along. Or did they really mean a people conversation with computers somehow involved. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/06/90)
In article <20959@well.sf.ca.us> tenney@well.sf.ca.us (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: > In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for. > >The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's > >wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof? > In California, it is illegal to record a telephone conversation > unless a notification (that "beep" every x seconds) is made to > (if I recall correctly) *both* parties of the conversation. As I said, I was just commenting on the ethical issues. But are you sure about your legal statements? Wasn't there a Supreme Court case a couple of years ago establishing that you didn't need the beep? Reporters still beep you every fifteen seconds to be polite, and smart answering machines do it because their manufacturers are behind the times, but I think the law has finally caught up with common sense. > This > hasn't, to my knowledge, been tested with data calls. There isn't, to my knowledge, any legal distinction between voice calls and modem calls, despite what certain ``entities'' might make you think. ---Dan
bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg) (10/06/90)
In article <21534:Oct605:29:4690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >But are you sure about your legal statements? Wasn't there a Supreme >Court case a couple of years ago establishing that you didn't need the >beep? Circa 1982, the rule at the radio station where I worked was that identifying yourself as an employee of the station was sufficient notice to record the subsequent conversation. It was deemed especially important to record the reporter identifying his or herself. That was eight years ago, and I'm No Lawyer. We had an FCC-approved beep box putting the tones on at one of the college stations that I worked in... But it had an off switch. Good psychological effect here: Start the tape, call someone, and if they object to being recorded, the interviewer makes a decision. Stop the tape, or stop the beep. The choice that the budding journalism undergrads usually made is left to your imagination. -- Bob -- Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc. cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837
mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Godwin) (10/06/90)
In article <185@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >Employers have no right to tap phone lines. There is both a technological and >a legal difference between "tapping" and simple in-house monitoring. Further, >as Stoll notes in his book, he did not have authorization for much of this >activity. Nova failed to address these distinctions. The similarities between >Stoll's behavior and the hacker(s) he was pursuing were ignored, and Nova >treated the chase uncritically. I think you're going out of your way to characterize Stoll as some kind of heedless violator of privacy rights here. Not only did Stoll keep his snooping of other folks' dial-up sessions to a minimum (the main thing he did with the printouts was determine whether the hacker had used that line), but you seem to forget that hacker ethic of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (see Steven Levy, HACKERS) was built on the assumption that everyone beyond a certain level of expertise would be able to read everyone else's files on a system. UNIX was *designed* around this assumption, and it's still the case that many new UNIX systems default to allowing anyone else to read a user's files. Secondly, Stoll himself is quite concerned with privacy rights-- he raised them as an issue at a user group meeting here in Cambridge just this week. Third, the scope of the NOVA show pretty much limited the extent to which a balanced view (e.g., "not all hackers are bad") could be presented. The story was Stoll's attempt to figure out a mystery, and his disregard of privacy rights, if any, was far less than, say, Sherlock Holmes's. Fourth, the NOVA show was filmed before the federal-government abuses during its investigation of computer crime had hit the major media (March and April of this year, except for a few minor stories). Stoll encountered a hacker who was a genuine villain, which naturally shapes the way he tells his story in the book, and which cannot help but shape the focus of the NOVA episode. >Many of us have been critical of Stoll's a-moral chase and contemptuous of his >irresponsible and one-sided depiction of "hackers." Stoll rarely criticized the intellectually curious hacker, as distinguished from the Hanover Hacker, who was trying to conduct espionage, and the Kaos Klub, which vandalized systems. As Stoll mentions in his book, his girlfriend Martha cautioned him about chasing after someone who may be no more than an intellectually curious computer user--like Cliff himself. As it turns out, the Hanover Hacker didn't fall into this category. I find the unnecessary characterization of Stoll as "amoral" (he clearly is not) far more irresponsible than anything Stoll said about hackers in general (on the rare occasions that he talked about hackers generally in the book). >A few months ago I was feeling quite badly for the tone of a review I had >written about Cuckoo's Egg. However, after seeing Nova, one wonders why Stoll >seems to have learned virtually nothing from the critiques of his work? For one thing, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the critiques of his work were published *after* the NOVA episode was filmed. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
lear@genbank.bio.net (Eliot) (10/07/90)
tenney@well.sf.ca.us (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: >In California, it is illegal to record a telephone conversation >unless a notification (that "beep" every x seconds) is made to >(if I recall correctly) *both* parties of the conversation. This >hasn't, to my knowledge, been tested with data calls. What about the telephone company? Can they monitor and record calls for their own internal purposes? Certainly, under ECPA they can monitor calls for their own purposes, so long as they do not divulge the information learned. In this case, would not Cliff Stoll be an extension of the phone company? -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
dick@cca.ucsf.edu (Dick Karpinski) (10/08/90)
In article <BZS.90Oct5210031@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >... The whole thing is a semantic minefield. > >I realize a lot of people have negative knee-jerk reactions to this >sort of thing, but something we may have to strive to do is take back >the language. If they take it from you they've got you. > >Look at what happened to the Hacker's Conference a few years back, the >whole negative incident was purely semantic. The conference was named >back when "hacker" had a positive connotation, and never changed in >spirit. But the word did, so suddenly some people read it as some sort >of terrorist's meeting or something, and there was some trouble. > >Purely semantic. May I gently suggest that we avoid calling these redefinition-of-terms difficulties "semantic" and use "terminological" instead. Semantics has to do with the meanings, and the conflict between two rather incompatible definitions of "hacker" is over their different meanings but I think the emphasis is wrong. The problem is that one term is being used in two different ways, thus neither spelling nor pronunciation gives guidance to the receiver of the term with two meanings. Besides, this change in usage benefits one of my favorite rewordings used to indicate a liar: "He's committed a terminological inexactitude." Dick
pplacewa@bbn.com (Paul W Placeway) (10/08/90)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
< That's true. They'd try to record only as much as would reasonably cover
< where they expected the criminal to go. That's exactly what Stoll did.
And when he found a more selective way to monitor _only_his_target_,
he switched to that.
Have you ever used an ATM? Do you remember to smile at the camara?
The basic problem here is a clash of rights. On the one hand, as a
user I (should) have the right to use my account in private, even over
the phone, just as I (might) have the right to talk to someone on the
phone privately.
On the other hand, I should have the right to detect and prevent (and
perhaps catch in the act) someone from using my system without my
prior aproval, just as I have the right to put locks on the doors of
my residence.
And I (probably) shouldn't have to search warrant to monitor my own
front door (back door, side window, etc). But it might be reasonable
to require some kind of prior legal aproval for me to monitor all the
doors of an apartment building.
Finally, someone who has trespassed into my system should definitely
have the right to due process.
No, these analogies arn't perfect, but they are pretty close. I have
to live and work in this corner if "cyberspace", and should be able to
do so without some other person breaking into my "house"/"office".
I ask nothing more than courtesy, but demand nothing less.
-- Paul Placewayzane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (10/10/90)
In article <59871@bbn.BBN.COM> pplacewa@bbn.com (Paul W Placeway) writes: >Have you ever used an ATM? Do you remember to smile at the camara? I have been informed by the mass-media (Note that I didn't say it was the truth never beleive what they say) that the camera was so if you get mugged they can see who it was. (You ALMOST ALWAYS have cash at an ATM) I don't know of any other reason they would have a camera there. You have any ideas. (And I always like to smile at the camera, sometimes it is hard to find though( -- Sameer Parekh :-) | "Censorship is the worst crime ever commited" zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM | -Sameer Parekh Censors should be shot, | "If cartoons were meant for adults they'd be shown hung, and quartered! | on prime time" --Lisa Simpson
edp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Eric Postpischil (Always mount a scratch monkey.)) (10/10/90)
In article <1990Oct10.013545.16689@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >I have been informed by the mass-media (Note that I didn't say it was the truth >never beleive what they say) that the camera was so if you get mugged they can >see who it was. (You ALMOST ALWAYS have cash at an ATM) I don't know >of any other reason they would have a camera there. You have any ideas. Another reason is to prove that you were at the ATM receiving the money, in case you dispute the transaction. I think this reason is more likely, as it serves the bank's interests directly, and the other reason does not. -- edp
chris@bushido.uucp (Chris Estep) (10/10/90)
In article <15929@shlump.nac.dec.com> edp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Eric Postpischil (Always mount a scratch monkey.)) writes: >In article <1990Oct10.013545.16689@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer >Parekh) writes: > >>I have been informed by the mass-media (Note that I didn't say it was the >truth >>never beleive what they say) that the camera was so if you get mugged they can >>see who it was. > >Another reason is to prove that you were at the ATM receiving the money, in case >you dispute the transaction. I think this reason is more likely, as it serves >the bank's interests directly, and the other reason does not. > I would think the reason to be more of the usual "scare tactics" employed INSIDE the bank. A prevention method if you will. The chances of them actually having to use the video are minimal at best. Kind of like having a watchdog. It's total purpose is to deter, but it'll probably never bite anyone
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (10/11/90)
In article <1990Oct10.013545.16689@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >I have been informed by the mass-media (Note that I didn't say it was the truth >never beleive what they say) that the camera was so if you get mugged they can >see who it was. (You ALMOST ALWAYS have cash at an ATM) I don't know >of any other reason they would have a camera there. You have any ideas. A friend works at a bank, and he told me of the time some slimebucket came in, raising an uproar about how he had tried to withdraw $200 from the ATM, and it hadn't given him any money, but it had debited his account. Whey they showed him the videotape of him holding the money up to the camera and counting it, he said "Never mind" and ran out. -- Mike Van Pelt "Hey, hey, ho ho, Headland Technology/Video 7 Western culture's got to go." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Stanford students and faculty.