Comment Re:Damages? (Score 1) 396
>>Millions of dollars in damages?conduct that caused these companies to shut down their
networks?retool?
>By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
no, by that logic, a better analogy would be.....if i set someone's house on fire, then inform them that it was flammable, i should be charged with arson.
really, burning down a house isn't that good an analogy at all.....since, as far as i understand it, no actual damage was done in kevin's case other than to the pride of certain individuals.......
imo, under slightly different conditions (e.g. he'd been contracted -- ever heard of "mystery shopping"??) this guy's activities would be called "consulting".......but the fact is, he wasn't hired. he broke in to these systems, without the owners' saying "please, try and break in."
so, it might have been fun (and even construed as an unintended *favor* to the "victims"), but, in strict legal terms, he had no business doing what he did.
it's basic issue of "sovreignty".......i retain the right to exercise exclusive control over my own domain (domain, in the psychological sense). even if what someone does is meant as, or ends up unintentionally being, a *favor*, it still disempowers me because it is something to which i did not consent.......
networks?retool?
>By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
no, by that logic, a better analogy would be.....if i set someone's house on fire, then inform them that it was flammable, i should be charged with arson.
really, burning down a house isn't that good an analogy at all.....since, as far as i understand it, no actual damage was done in kevin's case other than to the pride of certain individuals.......
imo, under slightly different conditions (e.g. he'd been contracted -- ever heard of "mystery shopping"??) this guy's activities would be called "consulting".......but the fact is, he wasn't hired. he broke in to these systems, without the owners' saying "please, try and break in."
so, it might have been fun (and even construed as an unintended *favor* to the "victims"), but, in strict legal terms, he had no business doing what he did.
it's basic issue of "sovreignty".......i retain the right to exercise exclusive control over my own domain (domain, in the psychological sense). even if what someone does is meant as, or ends up unintentionally being, a *favor*, it still disempowers me because it is something to which i did not consent.......
