[42145] in Cypherpunks
Re: Hacking commercial systems.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Futplex)
Tue Oct 24 11:58:50 1995
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
In-Reply-To: <9510241417.AA26593@zorch.w3.org> from "hallam@w3.org" at Oct 24, 95 10:17:35 am
From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Phill writes:
> [One vendor's] opinion was that attempting such a crack on a "live" system
> consitituted conspiracy to commit fraud
[...]
> If a request were made for a sample of material to work on most companies
> would oblige and a refusal would provide protection against legal tactics.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the vendor's opinion turns out to be
legally valid (IANAL):
There's something here I don't understand. How would a refusal to provide
a sample for testing/hacking provide protection against possible fraud
charges for hacking The Real Thing (tm) ?
Maybe that's how the law works (in some jurisdictions), but I don't see a
logical connection. I'm not aware of companies involved in deployed payment
systems throwing samples to the dogs.
-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
