, 2002-01-07
Federal anti-hacking law permits cybercrime victims to sue their attackers. So why is that software companies, webmasters and computer makers are the ones being hauled into court?
Expand all |
Post comment
Can we sue for those pain in the butt Pop UP ads?
2002-01-07
and can we sue Microsoft for the instant porn that we get on hotmail? (5 replies)
and can we sue Microsoft for the instant porn that we get on hotmail? (5 replies)
Can we sue for those pain in the butt Pop UP ads?
2002-01-08
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Hmmm, how do porn spam sender get e-mail address in first place?
2002-01-09
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Hmmm, how do porn spam sender get e-mail address in first place?
2002-01-14
TL (1 replies)
TL (1 replies)
Can we sue for those pain in the butt Pop UP ads?
2002-01-08
SteveB (1 replies)
SteveB (1 replies)
Can we sue for those pain in the butt Pop UP ads?
2002-01-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
A common tool used by hackers is the Trojan. This an application that entices unsuspecting users to willingly execute or install it. Then the application without the users knowledge or permission gathers personal information from the computer it is executed on and/or makes unauthorized modifications to the computer.
How, in principle, is this any different from what many software manufacturers or commercial websites do?
Such commercial venders often manufacture thier software to
track websites a user visits or gather other information about the user and thier computer. Rarely do such venders provide clear and adequite notice to the user about this "feature" of thier software.
The recent Limwire, Kazaa fiasco is a prime example of something like that.
It might be argued that such information gathering activity does not constitute "damage" to the user. However, many hackers don't actualy do anything harmfull to the systems that they have penetrated or the information they have gathered. I'm sure that those hackers are still criminaly liable for thier activities even if those activities haven't resulted in any actual "damage".
Furthermore, it is a documented fact that certain commercial software programs were manufactured with the willfull and express purposes of interfering with the operation of other (usualy rival) software products. Other commercial software programs willfully and without warning "deface" other components of the users system (i.e. brand thier browser, apply overlay adds while the user is browsing sites, etc.).
How is this activity fundementaly any different then a hacker who uses a Trojan to corrupt your system files or deface a web page?
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT soft on hackers. I believe they should be held responible for thier actions. I just don't happen to believe that software venders and websites are entitled to a "Get Out of Jail Free" card simply because thier activities are conducted under the auspices of commercialism. They should be held to the exact same legal standards that hackers are.
Chris
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/51/9734#9734