Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Adrian Lamo — Part 3
Page 250
250 / 501
Slashdot | Adrian Lamo Charg; ith Hacking @ Page 29 of 33
Oh, because corporations are always trustworthy (Score:5, Insightful)
by the-banker (169258) on Saturday September 06, @12:06PM (#6887571)
Tunderstand most of the arguments against what Lamo did, but there are a few points I
want to get off my chest:
1. To all those saying, 'Its like he broke in your house’: No it isn't. The machines were
connected to the internet, which is a public medium. A house is a physically closed
space where courts have rules one can have an expectation of privacy. Nobody can
claim that the internet should provide an expectation of privacy - by its very nature of
using shared resources it flies in the face of such an argument.
2. I don't know how it needs to be done, but truthfully do you (the collective Slashdot
you) trust companies to secure their networks, perform audits and be upfront and
honest about their failures? If | were a NYT partner I would be furious that my
information may have been publicly accessible, yet I would never have known about
its vulnerability without Lamo. How many companies have been hacked, had credit
card or other info stolen, and just not said anything about it? When Acxiom was
hacked, personal information on individuals was stolen over 8 months before they
"discovered" the hack - and the hack was found by Hamilton County, Ohio
Prosecutor's office when investigating another case that had come forward. What are
the chances that Acxiom KNEW they had been hacked, compromised personal
information, and said nothing? I am guessing with the current climate of corporate
ethics, a preity high chance exists that a lot of information is being disseminated by
people who stole it and consumers have no idea because the company in question is
sweeping it under the rug.
Hacking into someone else's system is bad. Nobody can disagree there, but the bottom
ine is a tradeoff of negative impacts - for what Lamo did I see a lot fewer negative
consequences than today's corporate ixresponsibility with personal information and
computer security.
¢ Re:Oh, because corporations are always trustworthy by juuri (Score:2) Saturday
September 06, @04:09PM
« Re:Oh, because corporations are always trustworthy by gothicpoet (Score:1)
Saturday September 06, @07:50PM
« 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
« Breaking into House/Car Analogy by wiredbuddy (Score:1) Saturday September 06,
@12:15PM
« First false stories, then shoot the messenger by cpopin (Score:1) Saturday September 06,
@12:18PM
« J reply beneath your current threshold,
« Ingrateful by Bruha (Score:2) Saturday September 06, @12:20PM
a Tid the Timee admins lia an their reenmeae? hy T adracandranidh (Genre Satordav
FBI(19-cv-1495)-1921
http://slashdot.org/artictes/03/09/06/1325221 shtml ?tid=123&tid=126&tid=172&tid=99 9/8/2003
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic