[LINK] Police probe hacking of GST Start-Up website

[Howard Lowndes]

Not so.  Take an analogy of an unlocked door to a building.  Just because
the door is unlocked does not give you any right to enter the building.

If the door is unlocked as an inducement to enter the building, eg. a
shop, then there is a reasonably presumed right to enter, but only to a
reasonable degree.  It is not reasonable to go behind the counter or to
pass through an interior door that indicated that the area beyond is
private or is not for normal public access even in the absence of any
formal indication.

...but then IANAL.

-- 
Howard.
______________________________________________________
LANNet Computing Associates <http://www.lannet.com.au>

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Rick Welykochy wrote:

> Rachel Polanskis wrote:
> 
> > Is there actually a criteria that defines what hacking/cracking
> > is as opposed to mindless tinkering?  I have heard of cases where
> > a user connects to a site via telnet merely out of curiousity
> > or accident and then having that construed by the server admin
> > at the other end as a hostile action.
> 
> The phrase "unauthorised access to a computer system" comes to
> mind. So does "unauthorised modification of data help on a computer
> system".
> 
> And nothing wrong with those criteria. But if the "authentication" 
> requirement of access to the computer system is not encforced,
> the fault lies with the system implementors (admins, mgmt, etc)
> rather than the accessor.
> 
> Tinkering that reveals lack of authentication is hardly hacking
> or cracking; it is an integral part of the maintenance of the
> Internet's overall security. In your local software dept we call
> it unit testing.
> 
> 
> --
> Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Pty Limited
>