It's easy for an opponent of good Samaritans to give an emotionally charged metaphor like "someone breaks into your house, doesn't touch anything, and then tells you". That is completely non-constructive.

Would it help if you thought of it this way? You left your car in a deserted parking lot in the bad part of town, and the door was unlocked. You come back to find the offending door locked and a note on the seat telling you that the writer had locked the door for you.

The law is essentially a processing machine made out of paper. It's only worth something if it's controlled by humans, because strict, unthinking obedience to what a machine tells you removes humanity from the equation, hence ruining the original purpose of the machine. The law is designed to keep people from maliciously using our computers (whether to acquire data, use the machine to attack others, etc). Let's use it that way, then. I'd rather get a note from a Good Samaritan than an emergency page from the Help Desk late at night. Good Samaritans fit in perfectly with the SPIRIT of anti-hacking laws, even if they do not fit in with the letter.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/70/11625#11625