RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Ballowe, Charles wrote:
> What is considered granting access? Does the fact that the machine
> allows me to access the content mean that I was granted access to that
> content? My personal thought is that the machine grants access based
> on the policies that it is aware of. If those policies don't match the
> intent of the operator, then it wouldn't be the "intruder" who is at
> fault for accessing information not intended for them.

And a computer doesn't know when it's being exploited.

If you overflow some buffer and get some arbitrary code to execute, you've
gained access.  Running a service that allows for buffer overflow is, in
essence, just like an open port.  Do you really think it matters how much
knowledge is required to turn the doorknob?

Personally, I think private information shouldn't be kept on publicly
accessible machines.  And that's the end of that story.  If you think you
can build a perfectly secure box, go for it.  But don't go crying to me
when someone gets hold of your data without your permission.

It is, in my view, exactly like CSS.

Now, using a stolen passphrase is forgery or ... whatever they call that
crime wherein one uses another's (or a false) identity for personal gain.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org