Re: Case Security Question

From: Colin B. (cbigam_at_somewhereelse.nucleus.com)
Date: 09/29/05 

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:13:34 GMT

Joachim Schipper <jDOTschipper@math.uu.nl> wrote:

(snips)

> Sidestepping the alleged kiddie porn (something *you* assumed, not
> unreasonably, but which is contradicted in another part of this thread),
> thieves who break into computers deserve what's coming for them too.

For the record, I can take the blame for being the first to suggest
kiddy-porn. That's pretty much the only porn that's unequivocably illegal
throughout the world, and almost the only thing that's likely to get more
than a few raised eyebrows in the western world. As you say though, the OP
clearly contracticted this guess.

> Besides, why assume the story is true? *I* know *I* don't trust the OP
> to provide unbiased info, or something that's not utter bull***. (I.e.,
> even if the story is true, the OP is too much of a party to the conflict
> to give us an unbiased view).

Pretty much in line with my thoughts and even advice. *IF* the OP is telling
the unmitigated truth, then they have everything to gain and nothing to lose
by taking careful, legal steps to get the data. On the other hand, trying
to get to it surreptitiously is likely to cause legal and technical problems.
Now if the OP is lying through his teeth (or much more likely, a bit too
close to be unbiased) this might remove the option of legitimate legal access
to the machine/data, hence the need for subterfuge.

I can appreciate the counterarguement, though. A system that allows dirtballs
to abuse people is clearly not guaranteed to deal with them properly when all
'official' channels are followed.

Colin