Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
Your arguement falls flat on its face LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix the individual admitted to hacking into the Department of Defense Computer system.

Having at one time had access to different aspects of the military internet - I can safely state that to go where the individual alledgely stated to have gone requires a password. If he didn't have a password granted by the administrator of the site, one would have to agree that his access was in violation of the law.



Now here is the internet page that is open to all to view.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

Now there are several links on that site that if you click on requires the individual to have the correct access authorization and is password protected.
Thanks! Finall someone answering my question seriously. Minus this part:
Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
Your arguement falls flat on its face LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix the individual admitted to hacking into the Department of Defense Computer system.
I already said above that "what would differ his actions from that of normal actions IN AN ALTERNATE SCENARIO WHERE HE HADN'T ADMITTED.

This part is the first serious answer I've gotten to that question:

Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
Having at one time had access to different aspects of the military internet - I can safely state that to go where the individual alledgely stated to have gone requires a password. If he didn't have a password granted by the administrator of the site, one would have to agree that his access was in violation of the law.
To all who just responded to me with sneer smilies and irrelevant ad hominem attacks and various red herrings I can say that it would aid the discussion if next time you actually listened to the questions I made, and answered like Redleg did, answering the specific question I posted and not something else you made up I said. Or if you don't understand my question please ask what I mean instead of choosing an arbitrary interpretation.

Now that I finally got the facts I asked for, I can make a proper judgement, and according to these facts I now know that there was a difference between this hacker's behavior and normal behavior, so now I can agree that the facts imply that he committed a crime. Trying to read your minds from your not very explicit posts (even if this message is quoting Redleg, the following comment is not directed at Redleg), it seems like you immediately thought that my opinion was that he was innocent in any case. The opinion I expressed and still hold, is that:
- until I've heard proof of a difference between his requests and normal operation, I'll wait with judging him
- if there are no laws for computer crimes yet, it's necessary to apply the mildest interpretation until proper laws are made. If you discover a loophole in the law, you should change the law, but only apply the new law to future cases
- the law definitions must be made carefully so that they protect innocents from accidentally committing crimes they didn't want to, and make sure it's very easy to differ crime from innocence, both for a user, and for people working with law in court or as policemen.
- computer technology is developing so fast that it requires new laws. In many cases these aren't fully built out, which gives a problematic situation. For safety of citizens, the mildest interpretation must always be chosen until the proper laws have been made. Changed laws can only apply to cases of crime committed AFTER the new law was passed, and not apply to earlier cases.
- I've now seen a difference between his behavior and normal behavior. If there are proper law definitions according to above points, then he can and should be sentenced according to what the law says. I doubt American law recommends life sentence in prison for crimes like these, so the American reaction seems exaggerated and not according to American law, but rather a statement made in a state of emotional rage.
- it's unclear whether American or British law should apply to this case. For Internet related crimes this is a serious flaw that international law, maybe through UN, should correct. It should be more clear what applies in a situation like this.