You provided that definition above in another post. I guess the discussion has been about if hacking violates property rights. I think it does and so the term “illegally” in the definition holds when it comes under the scope of property rights. I brought up earlier on how hacking (thus a need for another term “user” maybe) may not be illegal and thus may be a legal act. ok. So linking this up with the Climate Center it is still a point of contention if it was a hack or a legitimate entry of justice. I’ve heard of rumors circulating that it might have been a whistleblower from the inside. Wikipedia has that up now on its site too. But this is getting away from the targeted OP on hacking. so I’ll quit the post now.
Obviously not. Clearly, you have little grasp of the concept of property rights and simply wish to justify vandalism and theft, as well has having no understanding of what intellectual property means. This is not the place for you.
No, they are not. When items are password protected, child, that means “keep out”. If you are not specifically given the password, child, that means you’re doing the same as picking a lock to gain entrance to a house. That’s violating property rights, child.
And if you don’t understand how you happen to have access to mises.org, I suggest a good study of how the web works.
If someone gains access to your house because the person picked the lock on the door, it’s your responsibility to have had better locks and you have no right to complain when all of your stuff is missing.
Yeah–see how stupid your idea is?
Two computers communicating is not the same as one having physical access to the other.
As I said in a previous post, it is like one computer telephoning another, having a conversation.
If you telephone a bank and ask for information, they give you the information you asked for, and then the bank turns around and says they didn’t intend to give that information out, should you be prosecuted?
teuch,
In hacking, isn’t there a breaking of the security system? My computer has a security system. All computers have one that are connected to the internet or else they implode due to all the virus roaming the net.
I ask where the physical property boundary is in a digital network, and get called a thieft and vandal, and BTW, GTFO.
Where is the line drawn? If something is criminal, it needs to be properly defined.
Nobody here has managed to define what hacking is, except that determine that it is illegal.
I can’t define it, and am not intending to, just trying to argue that there is no property rights involved, and if a computer is on the internet then it is the owner’s responsibility to make sure it is secure. The problem is people leave insecure computers on the internet and then get viruses or whatever, so they blame hackers when they should be securing their own computer.
I’m not condoning hacking in any form. Just trying to show that without IP there isn’t any proper criminal recourse for someone accessing a computer when the computer let them in, when the computer’s owner didn’t intend it.
And consider that in the case of the climate center, I’m sure they’ll be trying to get life without parole for the people that revealed their schemes, all in the name of keeping the world safe from hackers.
I mentioned in another post that I think what the discussion is about…lol it’s funny I need to reflect on this (I’m laughing at myself), but this is what I think. Hacking in ordinary dictionary terms is an illegal act. What is being determined by us in this current discussion is if the concept of hacking being illegal is still illegal in liberty/property right terms. In other words it is being asked ‘illegal to whom’? Illegal to governments or illegal due to property rights devoid of governmental policy. In the big picture that’s what I came up with.
The security measures are the boundaries. The need for increased security is a self-defense measure to block invaders (virus, etc…). Actually come to think about it the internet provides a market for self-defense agencies. I buy my security per 2 years currently. I had an Apple computer and it was free with the computer. Dell, or at least mine, doesn’t have that option.
The problem is people leave their doors open? Understand I think there is a just motive for a person to storm a computer and break their security code and collect documents. It is just if prior to the act there was enough scientific evidence to show that the information is being used to violate property rights. In this case the person is not a hacker. Another term might need to be creatively introduced for such a person if it hasn’t already been introduced. Like Daniel said eariler, hacking is the illegal entry of a person. A legal entry, even breaking through security codes, is a different discussion - I think.
security systems for one are the boundary makers. the physical boundaries. like a lock on a door to a house. Is it my fault if I didn’t install a rocket laucher to keep out a person that tried to shoot his way into my house? Am I at fault for not having the bigger weapon?
Exactly. I knew this was probably in the back of your mind. It is in mine too. That’s why I’ve been asking in the other thread or making statements about the validity of the so-called hackers. They may have had evidence beforehand to go into the computers. I mentioned that there is rumor circulating that it may have been a whisteblower (wiki last time I looked mentions this too) which would be completely legitimate. Also any other forms of evidence even from outsiders to show their cause being just prior to the act would tremendously increase their legitimacy. There is definitely a concern here. If it is not shown that these ‘hackers’ had the evidence to prove their act prior to the act, then the Climate Center can be deemed innocent and this act was one of guilty until proven innocent. That would mean all the data retrieved will be thrown out. That’s why I want to know what the ‘hackers’ knew beforehand. There is information slowly coming out about all the events prior to this act. I’m still waiting to see how this develops.
Following your thoughts, there is no question that hacking is illegal under current laws. I am trying to view it in the context of Misesian property right and IP (of which I am very much a beginner).
And to restate my point, computers exchange information, like a telephone call between computers made in a rigid language. One computer cannot coerce another computer, it can only give the other computer instructions and hope that they are carried out.
The problem is defining a perimeter on a computer. It is not at all straightforward. It is possible to make a connection with a remote computer and transmit nothing, is that trespass? Ping the computer. Trespass? So on and so forth. With land it is simple, a nice perimeter with a white picket fence.
And what about computers that are intentionally public on the internet: can exclusive rights be said to exist for username/passwords. That would be in my view an implicit contract, and a violation of contract law and not trespass.
If any sort of explicitly unauthorized communication is verboten, then the internet wouldn’t function; I annoy a mod on mises.org, they have me arrested for trespassing on their website.
Two computers communicating over a phone line is not the same as someone walking into my house. It is more similar to me talking to my neighbor over the phone, or over my white picket fence and exchanging information. If my neighbor asks me to do something and I do it, he is not responsible for the outcomes of my action.
But even if they turn out not to have hacked, I still think this is a worthwhile discussion. Thank you also for your civil reply!
Why not coercion? These are physical properties at work. The person keying on one end is sending electrical impulses that invade or not. If a security system is at one end the person trying to manipulate and by-pass the physical security system at the other end is picking a lock.
In hacking it is trying to by-pass roadblocks. It is a physical infiltration worming it’s way through a security system (lock on a house door).
It’s not as simple. I don’t have a white picket fence and sometimes my door is wide open. Anybody can walk in but are they allowed to?
There is a deliberate reason for passwords. That is a door with a punch key lock.
A mod can ask you to leave. They may even ban a person. This is a private website, private property run and paid for by the Mises Institute. They can ask or ping/ban the person out. If a person tries to get back in under a different IP or something without permission they can ping/ban the person again maybe indefinitely.
And if I block your number access to my phone and you still manipulate a way through the block? There is a boundary. There is their computer site and your computer site and the internet in-between. These are not simple labels exclusive from the physical nature of their computer, your computer. A signal from your computer physically may go into another computer. If there is a security system and a person finds a way to manipulate passed it, it is the same as picking a lock. The computer age is different. The locks are different. But there are still locks, doors, and ‘mine and thine’.
Don’t let it bother you. And this is a worthwhile discussion.
I think it’s about boundaries. My yard has boundaries. Though not well-defined in places, in other places there are trees lined up along the border. The trees are lined up in a way that is understood that a person planted them. It wasn’t wild placement. Yet the property has been defined I don’t know how long ago by the original inhabitor of the current property lines. Other properties surround my property with a road on one side and railroad property on another, etc… There is no physical line unless I mark it or has been marked by original appropriation methods. Yet clearly there are boundaries. My intellect is not devoid of this world and what I reasonable settle upon in my interpretation of boundaries can be in accord with a sound theory which can be understood as the best theory that currently is. I still find one of the simpliest methods to sort through this is to ask what is ‘mine and thine’ and go from there in carving out real boundaries.
Ok, so you clearly wish to go off on some irrelevant bit. It doesn’t matter about physical access. It matters that the computer is someone else’s property and you’re trying to access that information when you were not granted access. Do you understand that? Is that too difficult to comprehend?
If a woman wears a short skirt and is raped, should she be blamed? You’re blaming the victim.
Where the computer is. If you are unable to grasp that incredibly simple fact, you have no business being here. None whatsoever.
Let’s go through this step-by-step, since you seem incapable of understanding the most elementary of concepts:
-
I own my computer.
-
What I put on my computer as far as software or data is mine.
-
If I let you have access by specifically giving you information to allow you access, then you can copy my data.
-
If I do not give you access in any way, but you are able to brute force your way in via pwd cracking or the like, how precisely is that different from picking a lock on a door to gain entry to someone else’s house?
-
How can you possibly blame the victim?
And if they take steps, but someone still gets in–it’s no different from picking a lock. Security measures like passwords are the same as locks on a door. IP has NOTHING to do with this whatsoever. Nothing. Why you persist in that red herring is beyond me.
Even if we didn’t have passwords/blockers wouldn’t it still be a property violation since I didn’t give anyone permission to access my (vulnerable) computer? You don’t have to overtly protect something in order to own it do you?
No, you don’t. But especially in the case of email: there are always passwords. So either way: it’s trespass and B&E.
Because in the purest sense, computers can only communicate with each other by talking. One computer may issue misleading commands to another, much like one person calling another pretending to be someone else. With security measures such as passwords, whitelists/blacklists etc it is possible to specify exactly who the computer should be talking to. If a computer calls pretending to be someone its not it order to get information it shouldn’t have access to then, it is a type of fraud in my view, not trespass.
This is exactly the sorts of controls I advocate, and any website is well within their rights to do so. If a website wants to stop someone from access their website, they should use their computers equipment blacklist them as best as possible. My problem is that trespass is a criminal activity, and physical force is justified as a response.
By the time a computer asks for a password from another, it is already communicating with the remote machine (inside, if you like). They are as connected as will ever be. If one computer starts lying about the username and password during the conversation, then surely that is fraud, not trespass.
With regards to boundaries, I am trying to determine exactly when the trespass takes place. When a telemarketer calls, is that considered trespass under Misesian property rights?
I think it is about boundaries as well, because it is all amount machines talking with machines. Determining which bit of the communication is trespass is something that I don’t think can be done with the objective precision of real property. And a criminal offense based on vague and imprecise definitions is a recipe for abuse IMHO.
It is a pity Mises or Rothbard never wrote on the subject, otherwise the case would be settled! [:)]
Your first reply in this set was abusive and insulting, and so I cannot reply to it.
Trespass allows force as retaliation. If an ping from a banned user makes it to the website computer, that is grounds to have them physically arrested?
RSA keys are copyrightable. If IP rights are recognized, then using a particular key could be grounds for suit if you do not have the right. That is the only thing that can make a password special, unless you are creating some new class of property for computer passwords.
It is like telephoning a bank over and over again, trying to guess somebodies bank password. The bank should (hopefully) notice and take action. The caller should be held liable for attempting to defraud.
Blame the victim? I am arguing that is doesn’t constitute trespass. It certainly deserves legal recourse, but not as a violation of property rights.
When you hack a computer you’re instructing their CPU to execute certain instructions that otherwise would not have been run. So at a minimum, you’re altering the voltage running on the wires in the computer. If you’re copying files from the disk, you’re making the user’s harddrive physically move to read the data that you are retrieving. Given that the user does not intend to send you these files, this is clearly a property rights violation. Even if you somehow manage to get the user’s IP address, login, and password (say they foolishly post them on a public forum), that doesn’t give you permission to access their computer anymore than finding someone’s car keys on the road gives you permission to access their car.
Granted, anyone who is connected to the internet is going to have their computer hardware accessed to some degree. Many of the internet’s core protocols allow people to access a computer to some extent. For example, if you’re not behind a firewall, somebody can ping your IP address which is going to make your CPU execute instructions that wouldn’t have run had you not been pinged. If people are upset about this, they can create their own internet with its own set of protocols, physical backbone, etc. or just physically disconnect themselves from the internet.
That being said, there aren’t any tears coming from eyes on the CRU getting hacked. It’s stolen property being used by government parasites to promote lies to further expand power over non-parasites. I advocate hacking any “public” property.
In the common case of a virus or worm, it is likely that is was sent from another infected machine to yours. Then your machine will send the worm out to other vulnerable computers. How could you prove to another party that you did not originate the worm and trespass on their machine? The creator of the worm could say that their computer was infected by another one. The concept of trespass would become meaningless.
Defining what hacking is to begin with seems pretty much impossible. Almost any action could be viewed as ‘hacking’ should a party feel motivated enough.
No, it doesn’t give you permission. The question is whether it is trespass and if so at what point the trespass begins.
And somebody might define that as hacking, another might not. Google might call that hacking if someone from Yahoo! did it, for instance.
Agreed, it is a public service to have these mails released, but I don’t advocate hacking in any form. And these ‘scientists’ have been hacking away at the people for far too long.