… s that these renegades abide by? The answer for those that consider themselves ‘true hackers’ is yes. Many of these hackers believe that there are 5 real rules as follows: 1. Never damage any system 2. Never alter any system files aside from logs. 3.
Never leave your handle (screen name) on computers you hack. 4. Do NOT hack government computers. 5. Be paranoid. (Revelation p.
4) Hackers have to live by the 5 rules above, if they don’t, their lives as they know it could result in 5 – 15 years in a lovely state or federal prison. All five of these rules are all preventive type things that will prevent the arrest of hackers. The general public wonders that if so much information is available, why aren’t any of these characters arrested? Well the answer is because there is no proof of wrongdoing. Mere text files that explain what hackers do, how they do it, and how to do it without getting caught are not criminal in nature. Now seeing that hackers obviously do have a set of standards and rules, why does the federal government spread the fears they do and why does Hollywood glorify hacking the way it does? Well the answers are often unclear. The federal government, just like anyone else, is afraid of what it does not understand.
Hollywood seems to glorify it, just for the simple reason that it is a major part of pop-culture and it has no idea what it is talking about. Movies such as ‘Hackers,’ ‘The Net,’ and ‘Mission Impossible’ are all perfect examples of inaccuracy blown to a whole other proportion. The movie ‘Hackers’ angered some many ‘true hackers’ with its inaccuracy that the web site that supported the movie and advertised was defaced horribly on several occasions. In fact, in Hollywood it is hard to find even a valid looking e-mail program in a movie! To fight back against these hackers corporations have devised several schemes.
Many have invested thousands into new security features for there systems. Where many have beefed up security systems, many corporations have beefed up there legal teams. These legal teams are on the look-out for anyone who can be seen as a computer criminal perpetrating crimes against a company. These head hunters are the cause for, often times, the wrongful convictions of users.
In fact, these legal teams had Kevin Mitnick jailed for 3 years before he was even allowed to see the evidence against him. Since this is the electronic age, all the evidence against him was on electronic media, and being that he was not allowed to use any form of computer, Mitnick was not allowed to view any of this evidence. Whether right or wrong, corporations will spare no expense in protecting their investments, and no one can really bl am e them either. The federal and state governments have also taken actions against hackers; however, the governments have the upper-hand in these battles.
With the power to pass laws and restrict all sorts of access, the federal government has decided to bully all computer users by restricting access to certain information and other perhaps questionable items. In fact, Congress has had a bill recently proposed that would make it a crime to publish any unauthorized information on narcotics, especially marijuana. Is this right? Of course not! This itself is a direct violation of the 1 st Amendment rights of everyone who would like to publish information on this topic. This is exactly the type of action the federal government took with the Communications Decency Act, which was later declared unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. This act made it illegal, as do several other laws, to send malicious or threatening information over the internet.
There was a case where a gentleman had written a story to post on a BBS (bulletin board system) that depicted sick and disgusting sexual acts and mutilation. This in is not worn, but he used a fellow classmate’s name and the story was seen as malicious and violent. The whole ordeal was and it was made to believe that this gentleman had every intent on harming and injuring his classmate. The gentleman was convicted of sending threats across state lines and has just recently been released of his lovely stay in federal prison. However, the Communications Decency Act was not the first attempt of the Federal Government to regulate telecommunications. In fact, the Communications Act of 1934 was passed and was the first attempt to regulate telecommunications at the federal level.
The federal government isn’t the only one getting in on the act, state governments are no better. Many states have initiated there own communications laws banning the obvious, things such as breaking into systems, etc. , But also regulate the type of data and information that can be sent across state lines. Many of these laws have clauses that make a user not only prosecutable by federal laws, but also by state laws. Many question the fairness of it all. Is it really right to try to regulate the American public like this? No it really isn’t.
However, the federal and state governments are trying to protect their backers, large corporations and businesses. To regulate speech and information, that is unconstitutional and should be dealt with in that manner. So the question remains, what is the proper way to deal with ? Is it to take the world off of phone lines and the internet? The answer to that is obviously no. The internet is the fastest growing phenom in the world today, and the end does not appear to be coming any time soon. Then is the answer to be harsher and more strict with the way we punish computer criminals? No, we as a society can’t be any more harsh.
There are computer criminals that will spend more time in jail that most convicted murdered and rapists. Kevin Mitnick has received a 35 year sentence for the crimes he perpetrated, as well as millions in restitution. Where as a person convicted of manslaughter has a maximum term of 15 years. In most cases this person can be paroled after 5. Is that fair? No. The real solution is that there is no real solution.
The economy is up, and little kids still haven’t stopped stealing bubble gum. The problem is that we have a group of millions that feel that all information and all data should be free to anyone who can use it, and perhaps in this manner, society can improve everything together. On the other side, we have corporations and businesses fighting to make their deserved dollars. They see things that if they just give their information away, can they really make any money? Computer crime is here to stay and almost doubles each year.
The only solution for those corporate entities is to stay away from your main servers being on the internet. Many projects do not require ther internet, so why have that information tied to it at all? There is no reason. Corporations can only try to keep their vital information away from the internet and try to beef up their security features. No matter what actions people take to protect themselves, there will always be at least one, one that will break that barrier and crumble the walls that are your blanket of security.
Brandon Hubbard English IV Bibliography ‘A Brief History of Hacker dom.’ Hacking History. Online. Available web 11 Jan. 1999. Corr, O.
Casey. ‘Electronic Burglars Can Get Your Number.’ The Seattle Times Sept. 8, 1991: A 1. Technology.
Art. 72. SIRS Researcher. CD-ROM. Coutourie, Larry.
‘The Computer Criminal- An Investigative Assessment.’ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Sept. 1989: 18-22. Corrections. Art. 38. SIRS Researcher.
CD-ROM.’ Latest Web Statistics.’ Latest Web Statistics. Online. Available web administration / information /. 16 Dec. 1999. Revelation.
‘The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide to Hacking and Phreaking.’ LOA’s Homesite. 8 April 1996. Online. Available web 11 Jan. 1999.
Sul ski, Jim. ‘Crackdown on Crime is Raising Question of Computer Rights.’ Chicago Tribune Nov. 18, 1990: Sec. 19, 17-18. Crime. Art.
53. SIRS Researcher. CD-ROM.’ What is a Computer and Telecommunication Crime?’ Computer Crime. Online. Available web 16 Dec. 1999.
Brandon Hubbard 1/11/2000 Working Outline and Thesis statement Thesis: Computer crime costs small businesses and corporations millions each year, puts restraints on legitimate computer users and still remains an almost unstoppable crime. Topic: Computer Crime Introduction A. Definition of a computer crime B. Brief background of the history of computer crime.
1. what computer crime originally was 2. what computer crime has become 3. definition of a ‘hacker’ C. Thesis: Computer crime costs small businesses and corporations millions each year, puts restraints on legitimate computer users and still remains an almost unstoppable crime. II The cost of computer crime on corporations A.
Description of how corporations are affected. 1. the affect of ‘hackers’ 2. statistics of the effects of ‘hackers’ 3.
the affect of corporate employees 4. statistics of the effects of corporate employees B. How computer crimes can cripple businesses 1. the selling and / or discovery of prototype plans 2. examples of the latter a. Kevin Mitnick C.
How corporations fight back. 1. preventive maintenance 2. system security III How computer crimes affect legitimate computer users A. Causes restrictions on legitimate activities.
1. federal raids of bulletin board systems and operators B. Restricts access to systems that may otherwise be made available. C. Spreads a certain fear amongst computer users. 1.
marketing ploys playing on these fears IV The unstoppable criminals A. The activities of ‘hackers.’ 1. methods used 2. ethics of ‘hackers’ B. Corporate actions taken.
C. The actions of the federal and state governments. 1. passage of laws 2. how these laws violate individual rights Conclusion A. Show an example of the alternative computer community.
B. Summarization of thesis statement. C. Give possible solutions based on the evidence provided.