I’m not hostile; I’m no-nonsense. Ever watch “Pulp Fiction” and how the Winston Wolf character is direct, to-the-point, and such? That is how I am. Hostile? No. Simply because I do not do touchy-feely nonsense does not mean that I’m hostile.
It’s a strange world we live in when not being touchy-feely is considered hostile behavior.
malicious callers who phone to breath heavily down the phonelines for sexual thrills, are told by the owners of the phones that they are not allowed to call back .
when they call back , breathing heavy again, i think they are trespassing/violating property.
A computer isn’t doing though in the sense of having a will. Please do not anthropomorphize the tool. Such thinking will only get you into intellectual trouble.
But to answer your question outside of your anthropomorphizing, the person could be charged with the torts of trespassing and theft if simply exploiting a security hole, and fraud with that if attempting to pose as a specific user.
I’m wondering how it is you can’t think of this yourself.
That they are. It’s no different from spam email, which is trespass-to-chattels, as Kinsella has shown.
One operates in the apperatus of a tool. A computer cannot use data against someone in a harmful manner. Similarly a shovel cannot magically rise off the ground and destroy your windows.
I get your analogy between phone calling and computers talking. The flaw in your analogy is that a telephone call requires human intervention. They don’t occur on their own and a computer connecting to another network does not do so on it’s own either. There are also agreements you made with the telephone company before you decided to use it’s service.
Another analogy back to the lock and key is this. A key hole is like a server. It has an open port and is listening for the right key shape(shared secrets anyone?). When the right key shape makes a connection it opens.
If a thief finds this key shape is he any less of a thief? A keyhole is nothing more then a server waiting connections.
I’ve never seen the movie. All I know is that tone of voice on a web-forum is often easily misconstrued. I know your response to that would be that it’s my problem. I come to expect that from you so it’s not biggy. [:)]
Anthropomorphizing? How am I doing that?
Instead of the person doing, the computer is programmed to do it, based on the instructions that it has been given. Because it is a tool, it must have somebody driving that tool. Computers communicate with other computers based on the instructions given, their owners are responsible for how they behave.
Torts of trespassing? I have explicitly mentioned previously that I do not think it is a criminal tresspass. I take it that you agree.
So if a neighbor down the street ships you a bomb through the mail or a letter with anthrax in it he’s not guilty of anything?
Similarly in my shovel analogy, the shovel that bashed out your windows only behaved based on the owners actions and not on it’s own. Computers as well only behave based on their owners actions, they are tools and if used to breach the network of someone’s it’s trespassing.
By saying the computer does X. Well no, it doesn’t do X without a program being run by a human either on an automatic script or in real time.
Programmed BY WHOM?
So then don’t say “the computer does X”.
In the sense that I do not believe that anything should be “criminalized” as qua “crime against the state”. There are only torts–crimes against individuals and their property
What? He is guilty of something a hell of a lot more serious than trespass.
Again I have to ask, breaching the network? How is that defined? It is easy with a large shovel. Can a ping be said to be trespass? etc. etc. as asked in previous posts.
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.
you seem to be fixated on some objective physical ‘size’ of the trespass. like you are judging whether something is a trespass by how much of a footprint the act leaves.
bomb crater. trespass you say.
standing on the grass, no trespass you say.
now; even if a poly-centric legal order places lax re-imbursement/compensation orders (or none at all) for relatively ‘objectively weak attacks’, this does not mean that they are not trespasses. furthermore, just about every example that has been discussed, it seems to me is likely to have a positive compensation corresponding to it.
don’t be wowed by scale. if your elephant tramples the neighbours garden. if your pet ant goes there for picnics (and is not invited by the landowner) it is a trespass, however small-scale..
Whoever has physical access, usually the owner. The code that runs on a machine in their responsibility IMHO.
Why did you not bring this up in the discussion earlier instead of saying GTFO?
How do you define breaching to gain entry to a house? You understand that, right? So how about translating that concept by yourself for a computer network.
Then stop the anthropomorphizing.
Because not only didn’t I have to, but you were on such a wrong page that it didn’t even matter.
Where did you get that from? If nobody can define trespass, then it cannot be codified into law without it being extremely vague and subject to state abuse.
Because I don’t believe it can be done. That’s why I asked.
You didn’t have to? Why? How does an ad hominem attack on me forward your argument, and your view of criminal justice does not?
What are you on here for, then, if only to abuse? If you are not willing to put up rational arguments, then don’t post.
do you understand that computers communicate, not on a spiritual plane?. they are physical, and the causal relations that obtain are understandable through the science of physics. this is no different from bats and balls. your ‘packets’ are realised in physical substrate. substrate that you can take responsibility for, since …they are your packets. if you can understand trespass in the mundane realm, of large objects you can reach out and touch. then you should be able to get an understanding of trespass, on a micro-micro-scopic level. since you are connected to those micro-changes, by your large clumsy tappings on keyboards and the like. just imagine your rampaging elephant leaving your front door, and shrinking as it goes into the neighbours garden. now the neighbour might rightfully be upset about your trespass, only assuming that he has microscoping pets of his own in the garden, that are easily upset by your polluting/trespassing elephant.
your problem is scale.