That's the point of the vigilante--if he or she can get in, that means someone else could have ALREADY gotten in and left things in there. If the vigilante can get in, then you already have to rebuild--it's just a question of whether you KNOW whether you have to rebuild. No point in killing the messenger.
Well, except vigilantes are self-appointed messengers. It's not their duty to be poking into other peoples' system. That's the responsibility of law enforcement and only within certain boundaries.
So that means the giant black obelisk in my neighborhood isn't really a street sign put in place overnight?
Re: Cell phone / Remote phone privacy
on
VoIP Questioned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yesterday, my daughter told me that she was having trouble hearing me because her next door neighbor's phone conversation was too loud. She even recognized the voice! Don't think for a minute that no one can hear. Even if you are on a wire connection, the other end may not be.
The ramifications go far. Lawyers can't legally demand attorney-client privilege for any information discussed over cell or cordless phones. I wonder what, if any, further legal statutes are needed?
1. The fallacy here is assuming that the laws *must* be correct, and failing to consider what the purpose and the origin of the laws are. The laws are presumably there to protect the everyone's rights. If everyone's breaking the law, what's the purpose of the law? Obviously either everyone has a double standard or thinks the law is silly. These "fundamental moral principles" you mention had better be supported by the masses, or they're elitist and don't belong in a social contract.
No fallacy has been made. See my post in this thread. The part you'd be most interested in is the final paragraph.
2. I'm not sure what you're saying. The students could somehow have accidentally caused damage? Oops, the deleted the student records by pressing the wrong button? This is an absurd viewpoint. You might as well argue that driving a car could accidentally hit a pedestrian, and should be punished. Add this to the reality that they didn't cause any damage, and had no malicious intent, since they actively turned over the information they found to the authorities.
It's not an absurd viewpoint at all. The analogy between cars and system access is incomplete. To drive a car you need to licensed and insured, which is supposed to ensure a level of competency. To access a system you need a user account and a set of permissions. So if you hit a pedestrian and you're not licensed, not insured, absolutely you should be punished. In fact, you'll be punished for not having a license and insurance regarless of whether you hit someone. That's the correct (or as close as possible) analogy to make.
Now, it doesn't matter that they didn't cause any damage. They should not have been there. They didn't have permission. And it also doesn't matter that they turned over the information. It wasn't their duty to do that. Are the admins negligent for not fulfilling their duty, which the students superceded? Absolutely. Basically, everyone in this situation is wrong. Intent only bears weight in tears of praise-worthiness. They still did the wrong thing and are culpable.
3. Your argument is weak, hiding behind the word "hutzpah." It's a legitimate concern if the university computer systems don't provide enough security to ensure that their personal information was secure. How would you like it if your doctor did the equivalent of posting your medical records online?
You've lumped the "hutzpah" part in with my main argument, which it shouldn't be. That was in response to the idea that the students should sue because the system was compromised when they were the ones who caused the compromise. That's just ridiculous.
That's true, but what about when an intranet is left open and someone, exploring the network, stumbles upon it?
Don't quote me, but in a cyberlaw course I think we heard that there's a German law on the books that you can be held liable if someone owns your system and uses it in further attacks.
What I'm saying is that we need some kind of legal protection for these kind of accidental "hacking."
Well, I can talk from a morality standpoint far more strongly than a legal standpoint. Morally, the system owner has a duty to protect and secure their own system(s). Since they're not doing this they're negligant and wrong. However, as the cliche goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." So exploiting the system just because it's left open still isn't right. While the example you gave certainly isn't breaking and entering, it does seem to be legally nebulous as to whether permission was required to enter, etc.
Do you think that even though a large percentage of the population do it, downloading music should be illegal? Do you think that all forms of backup of media should be illegal (as we are being persuaded they are and should be), dispite the fact that many people do this?
Yes, downloading music should be illegal. I'm currently working on a paper that addresses this as a part of the topic of ethical development of computer professors. But back-up media should not be illegal because there are perfectly legal uses for them. This brings about the term "fair use". If I own the material then I have the fair use of making a back-up copy. That's still respecting other people's property.
No it doesn't. All you did was restate your position. You haven't explaind how they could 'inadvertantly cause damage', or what 'unintentional mistake' they could have made.
My point is that they didn't know the system and ignorance causes problems. They could have edited a config file that was perilously set-up by the admin, breaking the entire system. I can't give exact "if A then B" examples for the same reason: I don't know the system. And because I don't know the system I'm not going to go poking around in it.
If that's your best argument then I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.
Personal attacks don't help one's argument either.
Great, now someone's trying to turn morality into something real and not abstract/relative. Heh, and better yet, trying to get it to have anything to do with the law. Now I've heard everything and then some.
The law is designed for justice, which is the morally right actions between persons. So law is very closely related ethics. And being abstract and relative are two different things. It is abstract to a point. Read Mackie's "Moral Skepticism" for some good distinctions. As for it being relative: no. Kreeft's "A Refutation of Moral Relativism" is a good read there.
Isn't it the other way around? Almost no one follows the speed limit and it hasn't been changed.
Sorry, not sure I follow. But you ask some more interesting questions later on that I'd like to address.
I think they actually wrote out an exception somewhere saying that you can walk across someone's lawn if it's the only reasonable way to get somewhere you're allowed to be.
That would be an example of a law based on prior cases, and not a fundamental principle. Levi discusses that and points out that the former breaks down inevitably and becomes circular while the latter is far more robust.
I've never heard of him, but does Donagan actually say that property rights are more fundamental than the right to not die because someone else was driving too fast?
Donagan doesn't prioritize "rights". That's dangerously close to casuistry. Donagan would say you shouldn't speed because you're disrespecting the safety of everyone else on the road. Now, the actually limit is a somewhat arbitrary distinction made by the government.
There is a useful legal concept which distinguishes crimes which are malum in se and crimes which are malum prohibitum.
Thank you. That was a very useful distinction. It goes along with what I was talking about in this thread. Levi's circularity.
Unfortunately, some newer crimes like hacking are difficult to categorize. Are the actions more like breaking and entering, or are they more like speeding?
I would say it's malum in se because the criminal acts in such a way as to disrespect the other person's property and cause harm intetionally, whether they want to punch them or the harm comes from a syllogism of actions.
You state that as if it were an easily proved result, rather than the subject of many of the most heated debates of modern philosophy.
Correct. I take a Kantian approach to ethics though.
The general concensus is that morality is at least partially subjective. It is certainly true that there are many different moral systems throughout the world and the question of who can say which are 'right' and which are 'wrong' with authority is at least a difficult one to answer convincingly.
An over-simplification of the argument would be that if you believe one absolute moral principle you're a moral absolutist. To be a relativist, everything has to be relative. Basically, yes, other cultures can be morally wrong. I don't remember the entire argument but I'll point to Peter Kreeft's "A Refutation of Moral Relativism".
You also assert that the laws against trespass are a fundamental moral principle, while many cultures do not in fact have such a principle. In fact, the closest there is to a fundamental moral principle is "don't kill your friends (unless they want you to)", and I believe that even that isn't universally applied.
It goes back to my support of Kant and his deontological moral theory. Again, to over-simplify, Kant asks, "Can you act in such a way that if everyone acted that way it'd still work?" For instance, take the ancient Inca-type cultures of South America. I think it's difficult to say that it was ok for them to commit human sacrifices.
That said, the law is absolute (at least in most respects). This means that it is an attempt to write regulations that enforce "moral" behaviour (for some particular value of "moral" that is quite hard to decide). Of course, it is imperfect, as all such attempts must be -- at the very least the people deciding what is "moral" will change, and with them the definition of morality that is being used as the guide. In any modern society there is a very wide range of different moral beliefs. The law cannot encompass all of them.
I just got done studying Levi's circularity of law idea. Laws can be based on either previous cases or fundamental principles. Those based on cases are circular and will break down over time while those based on principles are far more robust. And the law shouldn't be made to encompass everyone's moral beliefs because not everyone is morally right. I don't want the laws I live under to be accepting of the John Wayne Gaceys or Ted Bundys of the world.
But they didn't cause any damage. So how can you argue that there was a "disregard for liberty"? You seem to imply that they could have accidently done some damage. That's absurd and shows a complete lack of technical understanding of the issue.
It doesn't matter if they caused damage or not. Their disregard doesn't require there to be damage. As for the technical issue, I addressed it in this thread.
This was NOT an attack. It was basically high-level packet sniffing. It is NOT possible to cause damage with this type of activity... therefore your argument is null and void.
I think it's safe to say that these two didn't know the ins and outs of every inch of the network. It was completely likely that they could inadvertantly cause damage. Whether they caused damage intentionally via an attack or unintentionally via a mistake while in the network, the results are still the same. The argument stands.
Whitehats hack with permission. A security consultant you pay to check your network is a whitehat. Someone that hacks it on their own is a blackhat. There is NO right to obtain evidence through illegal means. You must ask permission first.
Precisely. In Kantian ethics there is a large focus on deception, lying, etc. The students had to deceive their way into the network, creating an ethically wrong decision.
For christ sakes it's just a law, you know those man made things. Usually written to protect the people with money. It's not like there's anything special about them. In fact every so often they get changed what was legal is now ILLEGAL and what was ILLEGAL is now legal.
That's an over-generalization. Murder is illegal and always has been. Mind you, the definition of murder to more precise than just killing someone. So there are legal absolutes. I think you'll find the absolute laws are those baed on more fundamental principles as opposed to those that say, "You have to be X years of age to vote," or, "Don't drive over Y MPH."
White-hat my ass, they didn't ask for permission to crack the system first; they did it, THEN told them they did it, how easy it was and oh yea, it was for altruistic purposes.
Thank you! This is the first post I've read that's gotten it right.
The school is feeling embarassed, and vengeful, so they make an example of the students; the students were only hacking the network to produce a news article on the lacklustre security at Oxford. They have a right to obtain evidence to support an article on the security systems, even by showing how the system can be broken into. Students likely have been complaining about it for some time.
They have a right to gather publicly available evidence. What they did is the digital equivalent of using a crow bar to pry into someone's building and rummage through all the file cabinets. If law enforcement had done that without a warrant there would be hell to pay by the civil libertarians. So, the question being: how are these two different? They're not. They had no right to break into the system. To say it was in the general interest of the public begs the question: "Isn't having a network free from intruders also in the general interest of the public? And didn't they become those intruders?"
I completely agree.
But the administration should get past the embarassment and call off the cops.
In the BIG picture, they have been done a favor.
Even if you ignore the embarassment, what favor have the students done? They broke into the network and trespassed. Even if they had fixed the security holes that let them get in you've committed yourself to a slippery moral slope of where you do draw the line? Can everybody hack everybody else's computers without permission to fix whatever they deem to be a security hole?
If everybody broke into a network would it still be unlawful.
Yes, it would. To quote the oft-cliched parental question, "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you?" Morality, and by corollation, law and justice are not relative. That is to say, the law doesn't change because some people don't obey it. The underlying moral principle of "respect other people's property" still applies. So it'd be easier to argue for changing the speed limit because it's not founded on the same fundamental moral principles as laws such as trespassing (Alan Donagan, "The Theory of Morality").
Obviously you know nothing about good investigative journalism. It would seem the only journalism worth a dman is when the writer feel sthe issue is worth risking his liberty.
I think you could say that these two acted with a disregard for the liberty of others in their pursuit. If they had seriously caused damaged, it would've affected thousands of other people, not just themselves. I don't think that kind of disregard can be justified as investigative journalism.
I hope the two students in question counter sue the university for lapse protection of their student records.
Reminds me of when a professor of mine explained the term "hutzpah" to me...
A man was arrested and charged with murdering his two parents. There were several witnesses to the grisly crime and no doubt as to who was to blame. When he stood before the judge he claimed he shouldn't be tried because of mitigating circumstances. "What circumstances are those?" the judge asked. The man replied, "I'm emotionally traumatized from just having become an orphan."
That is hutzpah, and those two would be exhibiting quite a bit to sue the university.
That's why this surprised me. In the real world, sure they would be rightfully prosecuted. But with the entire event being isolated to a university campus...
It's still entirely applicable to existing law. I know that in the state of Indiana that computer trespassing is at least a misdemenor while data tampering is a low-grade felony. Even if they do that at a university in the state of Indiana they're committing a crime. It's up to the university if they want to press charges but that doesn't change the fact that they broke a law.
Cooling issues are at the heart. For those who did not catch it, Apple unloaded on IBM today during the Q3 conference call for delays. IBM promises to have its wafer problems fixed by Q1.
So Apple's PPC goes from Motorola's (perceived) apathy to IBM's production SNAFU's. Murphy's law in action.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point of the vigilante--if he or she can get in, that means someone else could have ALREADY gotten in and left things in there. If the vigilante can get in, then you already have to rebuild--it's just a question of whether you KNOW whether you have to rebuild. No point in killing the messenger.
Well, except vigilantes are self-appointed messengers. It's not their duty to be poking into other peoples' system. That's the responsibility of law enforcement and only within certain boundaries.
They can be repaired via retraining...
I prefer the Clockwork Orange approach here.
Annoying people exist everywhere. The trick is to direct their annoying behaviour at your foes.
Doesn't Sun Tzu devote an entire chapter to that in his Art of War?
So that means the giant black obelisk in my neighborhood isn't really a street sign put in place overnight?
Yesterday, my daughter told me that she was having trouble hearing me because her next door neighbor's phone conversation was too loud. She even recognized the voice! Don't think for a minute that no one can hear. Even if you are on a wire connection, the other end may not be.
The ramifications go far. Lawyers can't legally demand attorney-client privilege for any information discussed over cell or cordless phones. I wonder what, if any, further legal statutes are needed?
1. The fallacy here is assuming that the laws *must* be correct, and failing to consider what the purpose and the origin of the laws are. The laws are presumably there to protect the everyone's rights. If everyone's breaking the law, what's the purpose of the law? Obviously either everyone has a double standard or thinks the law is silly. These "fundamental moral principles" you mention had better be supported by the masses, or they're elitist and don't belong in a social contract.
No fallacy has been made. See my post in this thread. The part you'd be most interested in is the final paragraph.
2. I'm not sure what you're saying. The students could somehow have accidentally caused damage? Oops, the deleted the student records by pressing the wrong button? This is an absurd viewpoint. You might as well argue that driving a car could accidentally hit a pedestrian, and should be punished. Add this to the reality that they didn't cause any damage, and had no malicious intent, since they actively turned over the information they found to the authorities.
It's not an absurd viewpoint at all. The analogy between cars and system access is incomplete. To drive a car you need to licensed and insured, which is supposed to ensure a level of competency. To access a system you need a user account and a set of permissions. So if you hit a pedestrian and you're not licensed, not insured, absolutely you should be punished. In fact, you'll be punished for not having a license and insurance regarless of whether you hit someone. That's the correct (or as close as possible) analogy to make.
Now, it doesn't matter that they didn't cause any damage. They should not have been there. They didn't have permission. And it also doesn't matter that they turned over the information. It wasn't their duty to do that. Are the admins negligent for not fulfilling their duty, which the students superceded? Absolutely. Basically, everyone in this situation is wrong. Intent only bears weight in tears of praise-worthiness. They still did the wrong thing and are culpable.
3. Your argument is weak, hiding behind the word "hutzpah." It's a legitimate concern if the university computer systems don't provide enough security to ensure that their personal information was secure. How would you like it if your doctor did the equivalent of posting your medical records online?
You've lumped the "hutzpah" part in with my main argument, which it shouldn't be. That was in response to the idea that the students should sue because the system was compromised when they were the ones who caused the compromise. That's just ridiculous.
That's true, but what about when an intranet is left open and someone, exploring the network, stumbles upon it?
Don't quote me, but in a cyberlaw course I think we heard that there's a German law on the books that you can be held liable if someone owns your system and uses it in further attacks.
What I'm saying is that we need some kind of legal protection for these kind of accidental "hacking."
Well, I can talk from a morality standpoint far more strongly than a legal standpoint. Morally, the system owner has a duty to protect and secure their own system(s). Since they're not doing this they're negligant and wrong. However, as the cliche goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." So exploiting the system just because it's left open still isn't right. While the example you gave certainly isn't breaking and entering, it does seem to be legally nebulous as to whether permission was required to enter, etc.
Do you think that even though a large percentage of the population do it, downloading music should be illegal? Do you think that all forms of backup of media should be illegal (as we are being persuaded they are and should be), dispite the fact that many people do this?
Yes, downloading music should be illegal. I'm currently working on a paper that addresses this as a part of the topic of ethical development of computer professors. But back-up media should not be illegal because there are perfectly legal uses for them. This brings about the term "fair use". If I own the material then I have the fair use of making a back-up copy. That's still respecting other people's property.
No it doesn't. All you did was restate your position. You haven't explaind how they could 'inadvertantly cause damage', or what 'unintentional mistake' they could have made.
My point is that they didn't know the system and ignorance causes problems. They could have edited a config file that was perilously set-up by the admin, breaking the entire system. I can't give exact "if A then B" examples for the same reason: I don't know the system. And because I don't know the system I'm not going to go poking around in it.
If that's your best argument then I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.
Personal attacks don't help one's argument either.
Great, now someone's trying to turn morality into something real and not abstract/relative. Heh, and better yet, trying to get it to have anything to do with the law. Now I've heard everything and then some.
The law is designed for justice, which is the morally right actions between persons. So law is very closely related ethics. And being abstract and relative are two different things. It is abstract to a point. Read Mackie's "Moral Skepticism" for some good distinctions. As for it being relative: no. Kreeft's "A Refutation of Moral Relativism" is a good read there.
Isn't it the other way around? Almost no one follows the speed limit and it hasn't been changed.
Sorry, not sure I follow. But you ask some more interesting questions later on that I'd like to address.
I think they actually wrote out an exception somewhere saying that you can walk across someone's lawn if it's the only reasonable way to get somewhere you're allowed to be.
That would be an example of a law based on prior cases, and not a fundamental principle. Levi discusses that and points out that the former breaks down inevitably and becomes circular while the latter is far more robust.
I've never heard of him, but does Donagan actually say that property rights are more fundamental than the right to not die because someone else was driving too fast?
Donagan doesn't prioritize "rights". That's dangerously close to casuistry. Donagan would say you shouldn't speed because you're disrespecting the safety of everyone else on the road. Now, the actually limit is a somewhat arbitrary distinction made by the government.
There is a useful legal concept which distinguishes crimes which are malum in se and crimes which are malum prohibitum.
Thank you. That was a very useful distinction. It goes along with what I was talking about in this thread. Levi's circularity.
Unfortunately, some newer crimes like hacking are difficult to categorize. Are the actions more like breaking and entering, or are they more like speeding?
I would say it's malum in se because the criminal acts in such a way as to disrespect the other person's property and cause harm intetionally, whether they want to punch them or the harm comes from a syllogism of actions.
You state that as if it were an easily proved result, rather than the subject of many of the most heated debates of modern philosophy.
Correct. I take a Kantian approach to ethics though.
The general concensus is that morality is at least partially subjective. It is certainly true that there are many different moral systems throughout the world and the question of who can say which are 'right' and which are 'wrong' with authority is at least a difficult one to answer convincingly.
An over-simplification of the argument would be that if you believe one absolute moral principle you're a moral absolutist. To be a relativist, everything has to be relative. Basically, yes, other cultures can be morally wrong. I don't remember the entire argument but I'll point to Peter Kreeft's "A Refutation of Moral Relativism".
You also assert that the laws against trespass are a fundamental moral principle, while many cultures do not in fact have such a principle. In fact, the closest there is to a fundamental moral principle is "don't kill your friends (unless they want you to)", and I believe that even that isn't universally applied.
It goes back to my support of Kant and his deontological moral theory. Again, to over-simplify, Kant asks, "Can you act in such a way that if everyone acted that way it'd still work?" For instance, take the ancient Inca-type cultures of South America. I think it's difficult to say that it was ok for them to commit human sacrifices.
That said, the law is absolute (at least in most respects). This means that it is an attempt to write regulations that enforce "moral" behaviour (for some particular value of "moral" that is quite hard to decide). Of course, it is imperfect, as all such attempts must be -- at the very least the people deciding what is "moral" will change, and with them the definition of morality that is being used as the guide. In any modern society there is a very wide range of different moral beliefs. The law cannot encompass all of them.
I just got done studying Levi's circularity of law idea. Laws can be based on either previous cases or fundamental principles. Those based on cases are circular and will break down over time while those based on principles are far more robust. And the law shouldn't be made to encompass everyone's moral beliefs because not everyone is morally right. I don't want the laws I live under to be accepting of the John Wayne Gaceys or Ted Bundys of the world.
But they didn't cause any damage. So how can you argue that there was a "disregard for liberty"? You seem to imply that they could have accidently done some damage. That's absurd and shows a complete lack of technical understanding of the issue.
It doesn't matter if they caused damage or not. Their disregard doesn't require there to be damage. As for the technical issue, I addressed it in this thread.
This was NOT an attack. It was basically high-level packet sniffing. It is NOT possible to cause damage with this type of activity... therefore your argument is null and void.
I think it's safe to say that these two didn't know the ins and outs of every inch of the network. It was completely likely that they could inadvertantly cause damage. Whether they caused damage intentionally via an attack or unintentionally via a mistake while in the network, the results are still the same. The argument stands.
Whitehats hack with permission. A security consultant you pay to check your network is a whitehat. Someone that hacks it on their own is a blackhat. There is NO right to obtain evidence through illegal means. You must ask permission first.
Precisely. In Kantian ethics there is a large focus on deception, lying, etc. The students had to deceive their way into the network, creating an ethically wrong decision.
For christ sakes it's just a law, you know those man made things. Usually written to protect the people with money. It's not like there's anything special about them. In fact every so often they get changed what was legal is now ILLEGAL and what was ILLEGAL is now legal.
That's an over-generalization. Murder is illegal and always has been. Mind you, the definition of murder to more precise than just killing someone. So there are legal absolutes. I think you'll find the absolute laws are those baed on more fundamental principles as opposed to those that say, "You have to be X years of age to vote," or, "Don't drive over Y MPH."
You mean like hacking a Windows box and surreptitiously installing Debian on it? ^^;
Heck, let's go hog-wild. Throw OpenBSD on there!
White-hat my ass, they didn't ask for permission to crack the system first; they did it, THEN told them they did it, how easy it was and oh yea, it was for altruistic purposes.
Thank you! This is the first post I've read that's gotten it right.
The school is feeling embarassed, and vengeful, so they make an example of the students; the students were only hacking the network to produce a news article on the lacklustre security at Oxford. They have a right to obtain evidence to support an article on the security systems, even by showing how the system can be broken into. Students likely have been complaining about it for some time.
They have a right to gather publicly available evidence. What they did is the digital equivalent of using a crow bar to pry into someone's building and rummage through all the file cabinets. If law enforcement had done that without a warrant there would be hell to pay by the civil libertarians. So, the question being: how are these two different? They're not. They had no right to break into the system. To say it was in the general interest of the public begs the question: "Isn't having a network free from intruders also in the general interest of the public? And didn't they become those intruders?"
I completely agree. But the administration should get past the embarassment and call off the cops. In the BIG picture, they have been done a favor.
Even if you ignore the embarassment, what favor have the students done? They broke into the network and trespassed. Even if they had fixed the security holes that let them get in you've committed yourself to a slippery moral slope of where you do draw the line? Can everybody hack everybody else's computers without permission to fix whatever they deem to be a security hole?
If everybody broke into a network would it still be unlawful.
Yes, it would. To quote the oft-cliched parental question, "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you?" Morality, and by corollation, law and justice are not relative. That is to say, the law doesn't change because some people don't obey it. The underlying moral principle of "respect other people's property" still applies. So it'd be easier to argue for changing the speed limit because it's not founded on the same fundamental moral principles as laws such as trespassing (Alan Donagan, "The Theory of Morality").
Obviously you know nothing about good investigative journalism. It would seem the only journalism worth a dman is when the writer feel sthe issue is worth risking his liberty.
I think you could say that these two acted with a disregard for the liberty of others in their pursuit. If they had seriously caused damaged, it would've affected thousands of other people, not just themselves. I don't think that kind of disregard can be justified as investigative journalism.
I hope the two students in question counter sue the university for lapse protection of their student records.
Reminds me of when a professor of mine explained the term "hutzpah" to me...
A man was arrested and charged with murdering his two parents. There were several witnesses to the grisly crime and no doubt as to who was to blame. When he stood before the judge he claimed he shouldn't be tried because of mitigating circumstances. "What circumstances are those?" the judge asked. The man replied, "I'm emotionally traumatized from just having become an orphan."
That is hutzpah, and those two would be exhibiting quite a bit to sue the university.
That's why this surprised me. In the real world, sure they would be rightfully prosecuted. But with the entire event being isolated to a university campus...
It's still entirely applicable to existing law. I know that in the state of Indiana that computer trespassing is at least a misdemenor while data tampering is a low-grade felony. Even if they do that at a university in the state of Indiana they're committing a crime. It's up to the university if they want to press charges but that doesn't change the fact that they broke a law.
Cooling issues are at the heart. For those who did not catch it, Apple unloaded on IBM today during the Q3 conference call for delays. IBM promises to have its wafer problems fixed by Q1.
So Apple's PPC goes from Motorola's (perceived) apathy to IBM's production SNAFU's. Murphy's law in action.
convincing the scammer that he was in the Church of the Painted Breast
I work for the Ministry of Silly Walks.