In the case of a computer on the internet, how do you give permission? Most commonly it is a password - anyone who gives the computer Username: X and Password: Y has permission. But if someone elses uses the correct username and password, they get permission, even if it wasn’t what was intended.
Computers will always do exactly as you tell them, and can’t read the minds of their owners (yet).
Another computer doesn’t have physical access to any of those things.
The person with physical access to the computer controls everything that happens on it. They can pull the power if they want to. They are permitting my instructions to be let through.
Am I trespassing on mises.org because I am at my keyboard, looking at the website? How do I know I have permission?
When you upload a video onto YouTube, what are you causing YouTube’s server to do?
When you hack into another computer, what are you causing that other computer to do?
Who defines if it is legal or not? The owner of the computer, in my view. Having physical access to a computer means absolute power over it.
If I put it on the internet, I must program it with precise instructions on how it must interact with the rest of the world. That is my responsibility.
If I program my computer by mistake to tell the world “come on in!” when I mean’t “stay away!”, should everyone who tried to access my computer go to prison because they couldn’t read my mind to determine what I actually wanted?
I think it is relevant. ‘Depends’ might mean the difference between 20 years prison or not. Hacking is a crime, but like pornography, almost impossible to define.
Yes, but what I do my computer is not the discussion. If I break into the Climate Center’s office and download stuff onto their computer, that is definitely trespass. If I access their website it is not trespass.
If I upload a video onto their website it may or may not be trespass, depending on whether I have the rights to use the username and passwords. To me that isn’t satisfactory.
That is what is under discussion, whether or not accessing emails was legal or not.
The email server says “Come on in, if you have username X and password Y”. The access the computer gives to someone is ultimately determined by the owner of the physical computer.
If the computer grants access based on username/password, then the physical owner turns around and says “Hey! You are not the person I intended”, it is the responsibly of the computer’s owner.
It isn’t right to point a gun to somebodies head because they sent a username and password to a computer, the computer gave them information, and then the computer’s owner said “That isn’t what I meant it to do! Throw him in prison!”
Look, this discussion is becoming a mess. You seem to be confusing parts of other posts with mine and you are being very imprecise with your usage of language. We have gone into tangents and arguments, questions to clarify, and analogies have become muddled. Non sequiturs abound. In other words, I have no idea what you talking about now.
So, I’ll attempt to get us back on track. Hacking is illegally accessing a computer, and hacking into a computer involves the physical manipulation of the computer. Therefore, hacking is a crime. Thus, hacking into a computer to retrieve emails is a crime.
There are many ways to access a computer illegally. One way is to obtain the username and password illegally. Another is to avoid the username and password part and illegally placing code that allows you to access the computer.
EDIT: This whole debate has to do with permissions. Which brings me back to my original question: Assume a file cabinet with three drawers. If I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer?
How can somebody tell if a password has been obtained legally or not? Your second point would require either physical access, in which case it is trespass, or a valid username and password, bring us back to your first point.
A computer is not a filing cabinet. I do not have physical access to the computer, and very rarely do I speak with the owner of the computer and make agreements with them personally.
I must interact with the computer over the telephone (literally in my case as we only have dial-up). My computer is having a conversation with the computer on the other end. Am I making sense so far?
Let’s focus on this. Again, I am using an analogy. Furthermore, the analogy has to do with permissions. Let me try this:
If give you permission to access only Partition A of my hard drive and to use the files within Partition A, does that mean that I also give you permission to access to Partition B of my hard drive and to use the files within Partition B?
If my computer telephones your computer and asks to access partition A, and it gives me partition A. That is fine.
If it telephones again and asks to access partition B, and your computer gives me access to partition B, who is to blame? Does the state now intervene and send me to prison?