Useless. You'd have to build a good wall inside the mote to prevent them "accidentally" throwing each other into it. Then again, they were death row convicts, weren't they?
The article lists a number of actions that the hacker shall not do. Most are to be expected, such as not modifying the system, not bringing it down, not exposing private information. The first and last points in the list are strange though:
I'm sure most of the crackers (script kiddies) don't have the faintest idea of the consequences of their actions. To them, the remote system is just another system, another command processor that they can control.
Also, the idea that what they're doing is illegal doesn't sink in; it's only recognised superficially.
I'd say, find alternative sentences that shows the consequences of breaking in. Four weeks of miscellaneous chores in a backup tape factory, reinstalling systems that were broken in to, or something.
Also, make sure beforehand that everyone knows that cracking a system means downtime, a lot of work to reinstall, and consequential damages. All that, even if nothing was broken, because the sysadmin has to reinstall anyway just to be safe.
That being said, I think some responsible cracking should be permissible under some strict conditions (don't break anything, report the security hole, inform the victim), maybe to prove that there actually is a hole. My ISP (XS4ALL) have some rules (Dutch, sorry) on this.
7. Consumers will still focus on the wrong things. Insiders will defraud companies because all the defenses will point outwards. Bad software will continue to be purchased and deployed because "it's what everyone else uses." Little funding will be provided for education and long-term research because it has no obvious impact on the quarterly report. Instead, untold billions of dollars will be spent on short-term patches and fixes that need to be replaced every few months. Military systems will be purchased because they are COTS, not because they are safe or well-tested. Many disasters will make the news in coming years as a result.
As reports of spectacular security failures increase, the public will feel more and more insecure. Instead of taking their own responsibility, they will turn to the lawmakers to provide them with laws that will give them back their security. These laws will come, since the lawmakers have to do something, even if the effect would be largely debatable.
The idea of making a software company pay with it's own software is so patently ridiculous... even more amazing is the limitless gall Microsoft has in presenting this "remedy".
So, my dear Microsoft, you want to donate to schools? Surely you think it's reasonable that we take the revenues of your donation into account?
Alright then, let's say 90% of your ``donation'' comes back as revenue in 10 years time. We hereby declare that the 10% you really lose should be equal to the settlement we agree to. Therefore, the required donation will be multiplied by 10.
Slashdot Mirror
Useless. You'd have to build a good wall inside the mote to prevent them "accidentally" throwing each other into it. Then again, they were death row convicts, weren't they?
... and don't wait for one to finish before starting the others.
The article lists a number of actions that the hacker shall not do. Most are to be expected, such as not modifying the system, not bringing it down, not exposing private information. The first and last points in the list are strange though:
Eh? Why are these not valid attack vectors?
I'm sure most of the crackers (script kiddies) don't have the faintest idea of the consequences of their actions. To them, the remote system is just another system, another command processor that they can control.
Also, the idea that what they're doing is illegal doesn't sink in; it's only recognised superficially.
I'd say, find alternative sentences that shows the consequences of breaking in. Four weeks of miscellaneous chores in a backup tape factory, reinstalling systems that were broken in to, or something.
Also, make sure beforehand that everyone knows that cracking a system means downtime, a lot of work to reinstall, and consequential damages. All that, even if nothing was broken, because the sysadmin has to reinstall anyway just to be safe.
That being said, I think some responsible cracking should be permissible under some strict conditions (don't break anything, report the security hole, inform the victim), maybe to prove that there actually is a hole. My ISP (XS4ALL) have some rules (Dutch, sorry) on this.
As reports of spectacular security failures increase, the public will feel more and more insecure. Instead of taking their own responsibility, they will turn to the lawmakers to provide them with laws that will give them back their security. These laws will come, since the lawmakers have to do something, even if the effect would be largely debatable.
So, my dear Microsoft, you want to donate to schools? Surely you think it's reasonable that we take the revenues of your donation into account?
Alright then, let's say 90% of your ``donation'' comes back as revenue in 10 years time. We hereby declare that the 10% you really lose should be equal to the settlement we agree to. Therefore, the required donation will be multiplied by 10.
Thank you.