Political Theory

Re: Hacking

wilderness — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:03:12 GMT

teuch:

I accept computers can be owned.

By whom?

teuch:

I do not accept that attempting to access it is trespass.

Attempting to access who's computer is not trespassing?

Re: Hacking

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:56:18 GMT

It should be noted that in this case, "theft" is a bit more metaphorical, standing in for "unauthorized copying of someone else's property", as the files are still on the host computer.

Re: Hacking

filc — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:40:49 GMT

teuch:
Can a ping be said to be trespass? etc. etc. as asked in previous posts.

It most certainly can. Thats why several firewalls deliberately block various ICMP requests. However if ICMP is turned on we may assume that the property owner has allowed ICMP requests to his devices. This is generally done for non-malicious reasons as you can not really do DOS any more with ICMP and generally speaking the information gained from an ICMP echo-reply contains non-sensitive data beyond the existence of a device using a specific IP.

Are you going to try to tell me that if someone allows ICMP they also cannot legitimately block Samba connections or NFS connections? That its all or nothing? Either open or closed? The distinction is entirely arbitrary on your part. A network administrator is entirely capable of deciding what he wants allowed into his network and what connections he permits.

And to re-iterate nirgrahamUK. Your problem is definately scale. You have chosen to arbitrarily remove electrons from the realm of property rights. In your mind only when an atom consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons grouped together does it then arbitrarily come into the realm of property rights.

teuch:

All I'm asking for is a definition of some terms and the argument for application. All I'm getting is accusations of me supporting rapists and bombers and absurd analogies.

No, what we are asking YOU is how YOU can arbitrarily remove the definition of trespassing from private networks. Your trying to argue that because it's 'information' we have no right to protect it nor any recourse if we have our 'information' stolen. Though I tell you, a carefully constructed hammer is also just 'information' organized in an entirely different manner.

When using "define: trespass" on google the first result is entirely compatible with trespassing into private networks.

teuch:
Do you realize that computers communicate through a language, and that the words of that language can be transformed in many ways between computers. Only the information remains. Like English, I could write a message, pass it to another person they could shout it out to the next person etc. etc.: the meaning of the message remains the same, the information hasn't changed; the form is different.

You seem like a prime candidate for identity theft or credit card fraud. Why don't I just take your card # and give it to the next guy? After all it's only information right? No property can be assigned to it.

The truth is computers do NOT communicate through a language. Computers exchange electrons which are then compiled into information later on. A computer does not talk to another computer or anything else. This is an analogy that has been taught to you in entry level IT coarse. It's a good analogy for educational purposes but trying to state that because a computer compiles bits of electrons into patterns somehow constitutes them being exempt as property is again an entirely arbitrary distinction on your part.

FYI, I'm going to go out on a limb at this point and guess that I know a bit more about computers and networks then you do.

So don't play the, 'you don't know computer networks work' game with me. I've more then earned my reputation in that industry.

Definition:
enter unlawfully on someone's property; "Don't trespass on my land!"

You have to somehow explain to me how my harddrive and the contents of my physical memory is somehow not my property and that somehow you have a right to gain access to it's contents without my permission.

teuch:
All I'm asking for is a definition of some terms and the argument for application. All I'm getting is accusations of me supporting rapists and bombers and absurd analogies.

I never accused you of being a bomber. I used your own analogy against you to show it's holes. You apparently missed it's point.

teuch:
They are not the same atoms.. they may hold the same information.

Why are they not the same? Because they lack a proton and a neutron? Is somehow an electron not homesteadable? Again your distinction is entirely arbitrary. Your arguing under your own definition of property at this point.

Re: Hacking

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:57:53 GMT

It's a form of trespass-to-chattels. And you are correct in that it is unauthorized access to someone else's machine/network (which is what many of us have been saying).

Re: Hacking

Eioul — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:56:12 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

It's trespass because you're actually accessing someone else's property, not just tricking someone into giving you something.

Fraud, though, is the more important part if there were an actual legal proceeding. Trespass is still occuring, but the fact someone was using fraud to gain access to information that is stored on the computer should be the main purpose of any legal proceeding. I'm not sure if the distinction between trespass and fraud really matters in the context of hacking. I don't think "trespass" is the right word either, but what matters is that there is unauthorized access to data on an owned machine.

Re: Hacking

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:33:00 GMT

It's trespass because you're actually accessing someone else's property, not just tricking someone into giving you something.

Re: Hacking

teuch — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:26:41 GMT

Daniel:
So you are saying that, when two computers communicate, there is nothing physical going on?

No, I am saying that it is the information contained in the physical transactions that is what constitutes the true violation.

Sending a letter to someone isn't criminal, sending a letter containing a death threat it. It is the intent of the letter, something that can't be established simply by saying that there is a letter. Even if the letter is a photocopy of the original, the mens rea of the sender is in part determined by the information, the wording, of the letter.

If a computer receives a packet, the act of receiving the packet should not constitute a violation. If it is a part of a larger attack it is the intent of the sender that constitutes the violation.

If somebody views a website on my website that I did not intend them to see, if they had no intent on depriving the owner of peaceful use my property, then I should not be able to lock them up. The viewer is innocent, and I am fired for carelessness.

Conversely, if somebody deceives the webserver into releasing private information in one way or another, that isn't trespass from my point of view, but a user engaging in fraud. But that would be like a scam letter or phonecall: deception.

Re: Hacking

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:17:09 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Then you're either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?

teuch:
I'm not interested in engaging you any further.

Sucks when your deceit is exposed, doesn't it?

Re: Hacking

DanielMuff — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:09:05 GMT

teuch:

Daniel:

/facepalm. Let's try this:

If I hit you with my fist, is that battery? What if I throw a basketball at your door and cause your door to hit you across the forehead, is that battery?

Facepalm? What is the point of your strawman?

I am talking about information being transmitted.

So you are saying that, when two computers communicate, there is nothing physical going on?

Re: Hacking

teuch — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:03:02 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Then you're either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?

I'm not interested in engaging you any further.

Re: Hacking

teuch — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:00:48 GMT

Daniel:

/facepalm. Let's try this:

If I hit you with my fist, is that battery? What if I throw a basketball at your door and cause your door to hit you across the forehead, is that battery?

Facepalm? What is the point of your strawman?

I am talking about information being transmitted.

Re: Hacking

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:26:48 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
f you are trying to create some idiotic strawman vis-a-vis simple access to an open network where you are allowed free entry, you're barking up the wrong damned tree, and I suggest you kill that noise right now.

teuch:
No! A thousand times, No! I am not defending "simple access to an open network where you are allowed free entry".

Then you're either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?

Re: Hacking

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:25:34 GMT

teuch:
How should criminal trespass be defined?

It shouldn't.

Re: Hacking

teuch — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:11:34 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

teuch:
There are only torts--crimes against individuals and their property

and provider of law and security are legitimate private organisations/businesses forming a polycentric legal order.

as opposed to the monopoly state legal order; which is legal positivism, and which imagines that crimes against private citizens are primarily crimes against society/state

OK, Thank You! I am new to mises in general, and have been trying to get my head around the terminology used.

I have been trained to recognize criminal law, the source being legislation (state monopoly of power), and civil (tort) law, and that there is no 'criminality' in tort law, only finding facts and determining remedy.

Re: Hacking

DanielMuff — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:10:52 GMT

teuch:

Daniel:
But, but, but, but, but, but using your logic, this is an incorrect analogy because letters are physical.

See the latter post about information transforming.

Daniel:
Do you realize that when you speak Engrish, you causing atoms of air to move, and for the other persons ear to vibrate?

They are not the same atoms.. they may hold the same information.

It is only the information that get to the recipient, not the original atoms.

/facepalm. Let's try this:

If I hit you with my fist, is that battery? What if I throw a basketball at your door and cause your door to hit you across the forehead, is that battery?