Is it wrong to hack into a system without intention of damaging the system?
- Thread Starter Shanice
- Start date
- Status
But what if we looked into the Felten case, in which the professor Felten and his colleagues responded to the HackSMDI contest and they found some vulnerability in the code. However they rejected the offer from the RIAA and decided to share their findings at a conference. As a result, the US Department of Justice and the recording industry stopped the professor to present their works as this violates the DMCA.
So, this is the question: Is it illegal even if the group of professors had the permission to hack for the contest and share their learning areas to others?
So, this is the question: Is it illegal even if the group of professors had the permission to hack for the contest and share their learning areas to others?
it depends on what they had permission for.
I am not familiar with that case or with what happened there, but if I understand correctly, there was a "contest" to hack a system, so there was a permission to do that.
Now back to my question:
I make a contest: See how cool my security systems are! I invite you all to try to get past my security system into my house.
You come and successfully enter my house. You can argue, yes, I gave you permission to enter. So it is not trespass.
But did I give you permission to tell everyone where in the house I have my dirty laundry? Did I give you permission to tell everyone how you got in there?
To answer that you would need to know: the details of the agreement between me and you. If the agreement did not cover those areas, you would have to look at the law: is there any law that says this is wrong? What about privacy for example?
Then you argue.
I am not familiar with that case or with what happened there, but if I understand correctly, there was a "contest" to hack a system, so there was a permission to do that.
Now back to my question:
I make a contest: See how cool my security systems are! I invite you all to try to get past my security system into my house.
You come and successfully enter my house. You can argue, yes, I gave you permission to enter. So it is not trespass.
But did I give you permission to tell everyone where in the house I have my dirty laundry? Did I give you permission to tell everyone how you got in there?
To answer that you would need to know: the details of the agreement between me and you. If the agreement did not cover those areas, you would have to look at the law: is there any law that says this is wrong? What about privacy for example?
Then you argue.
NYClex has it right and if you want actual argument, take a good look at cases involving hackers that hacked into ebay, cases in Massachussetts state court for criminal prosecution, articles dealing with Kevin Mitnick as well -- and you'll find that there is a fundamental legal theory that is the same for virtual and cyber reality. That theory is "trespass" and one which NYClex sublty alluded to with his opening question using Socratic methodology...
If I own a home then I have a right to exclude others from my private space, where I may create inventions, keep my diary, or a collection of frilly lingerie from the local department store. If someone broke into the house then there would be an invasion to the privacy that the home owner had a right to expect. It is a violation which is damaging and it matters not that you think it bears no harm.
As was pointed out by NYClex, the SMDI matter was a challenge whereby permission was explicitly granted to enter if one could. That is a big difference from one who has placed locks as a barrier to entry and invited no one to attempt to enter.
If I own a home then I have a right to exclude others from my private space, where I may create inventions, keep my diary, or a collection of frilly lingerie from the local department store. If someone broke into the house then there would be an invasion to the privacy that the home owner had a right to expect. It is a violation which is damaging and it matters not that you think it bears no harm.
As was pointed out by NYClex, the SMDI matter was a challenge whereby permission was explicitly granted to enter if one could. That is a big difference from one who has placed locks as a barrier to entry and invited no one to attempt to enter.
- Status