Slashdot Mirror
Judge Refuses To Convict Hacker
Jake96 writes "A judge in Wellington, New Zealand, declined to convict a man who ran an unrequested security audit on a bank's phone systems and was charged with 'intentionally accessing a computer system knowing he was not authorized to,' according to an article in the New Zealand Herald."
Stupid court results?? I thought that was the norm in the US so why would it set a precedence?
Maybe you should read what this guy actually did. he intruded into a banks phone system (without permission), performed a security audit (again without permission), and then tried to get the bank to pay for his work. If I was the bank I would be taking this bastard to court too. how would you feel if someone turned up at your house did some work then sent you a bill all without you requesting anythign be done. The fact that the bank has a security issue is a side note here, they should be hiring a "reputable" security firm to look at there systems.
Actually, it's a bit more serious than that. The bank http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/ who's phone system he compromised is an approximate functional equivilant of the US Federal Reserve http://www.federalreserve.gov/ (but quite a bit smaller).
He's very lucky he did it in NZ where it appears that the courts consider him stupid rather than malicious. In other countries he might get charged with terrorism related offenses or worse.
Fast, cheap & reliable. Pick two.
Imagine this: A man walks up to your house while you're gone and tests each lock on every door and window. He finds a way to break in -- but claims that he hasn't. Then he sends you a letter saying he knows your security vulnerabilities and requests payment for that knowledge.
Is it better or worse that he actually walked around inside your house?