Let's, just slightly, change your analogy from checking car doors to checking the doors of business establishments, which are normally expecting public access. So when your hypothetical door checker goes around finding out who's open no law is broken because front doors and public access are expected.
Well, if you interface a mail server to the public Internet you should expect occasional probing, illicit as well as legitimate, to occur. If you were on an intranet you could expect exclusivity but not so on the public Internet.
The apparently inept manager who failed to keep their server current and thus avoid the exploit should be held responsible. She apparently ignored this fact and failed to tell the investigating officer that fact. Let's see 'hmm, I'm too lazy to do this upgrade so go arrest this kid in NY'.
These people acted irresponsibly and abused their power. They should have known better.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's, just slightly, change your analogy from checking car doors to checking the doors of business establishments, which are normally expecting public access. So when your hypothetical door checker goes around finding out who's open no law is broken because front doors and public access are expected.
Well, if you interface a mail server to the public Internet you should expect occasional probing, illicit as well as legitimate, to occur. If you were on an intranet you could expect exclusivity but not so on the public Internet.
The apparently inept manager who failed to keep their server current and thus avoid the exploit should be held responsible. She apparently ignored this fact and failed to tell the investigating officer that fact. Let's see 'hmm, I'm too lazy to do this upgrade so go arrest this kid in NY'.
These people acted irresponsibly and abused their power. They should have known better.