Yes or No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W3WN

Sad to say:

If you want someone to give you unquestionable, undeniable, undemanding love... get a dog.

---

I already have two dogs... I asked for a hug. Dogs can't hug. WTF?

Woof

Grrrr

Shoulda hacked that mother and turned it into a Russian spambot. Fuck ethics.

Legally, yes.

Morally? Well, he secured their router for them.

I would have to say what he did was wrong but not malicious. He had no business changing their settings without permission, even if their settings sucked, However, I don't know if "hacked" is the correct word. In any event he accessed it (got in as root) and changed a few settings. I would say that what he did was wrong, you don't just go accessing and changing things without permission from the person(s) in charge. At the same time no real harm was caused, if anything he left things more secure than they were. However that still doesn't make his actions correct. What amazes me is that to this date there are many businesses that still run things in a completely insecure configuration, never bothering o tighten things up even a bit. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n2ize

I would have to say what he did was wrong but not malicious. He had no business changing their settings without permission, even if their settings sucked, However, I don't know if "hacked" is the correct word. In any event he accessed it (got in as root) and changed a few settings. I would say that what he did was wrong, you don't just go accessing and changing things without permission from the person(s) in charge. At the same time no real harm was caused, if anything he left things more secure than they were. However that still doesn't make his actions correct. What amazes me is that to this date there are many businesses that still run things in a completely insecure configuration, never bothering o tighten things up even a bit. :(

---

OK, I'll concede that "hack" may have been a little strong... given the current interpretation. Back when the curmudgeons yelled at ME to get off THEIR lawn, being a hacker was a badge of honor, not an implication of someone up to mischief.

But you do agree that what he did was, technically, wrong. So at least I know I wasn't off base in that aspect.

He & I will just have to discuss ethics over pizza at lunchtime (ownership is buying pizza for everyone who didn't take the day off).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W3WN

OK, I'll concede that "hack" may have been a little strong... given the current interpretation. Back when the curmudgeons yelled at ME to get off THEIR lawn, being a hacker was a badge of honor, not an implication of someone up to mischief.

But you do agree that what he did was, technically, wrong. So at least I know I wasn't off base in that aspect.

He & I will just have to discuss ethics over pizza at lunchtime (ownership is buying pizza for everyone who didn't take the day off).

---

Well being a hacker had a different meaning. There wasn't much in the way of malicious unauthorized activity going on "back in the day". Sure there were phone phreaks. But nothing like Mitnick until 1995 or so.

I remember when any number of government systems were unpassworded and telnetable. It was surprising that no one tried to mess with those systems back then.

It's a different world now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KD8TUT

Well being a hacker had a different meaning. There wasn't much in the way <snip> back then.

It's a different world now.

---

Science Fiction became reality ... once again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W3WN

OK, I'll concede that "hack" may have been a little strong... given the current interpretation. Back when the curmudgeons yelled at ME to get off THEIR lawn, being a hacker was a badge of honor, not an implication of someone up to mischief.

But you do agree that what he did was, technically, wrong. So at least I know I wasn't off base in that aspect.

He & I will just have to discuss ethics over pizza at lunchtime (ownership is buying pizza for everyone who didn't take the day off).

---

Yes, technically wrong, because he went beyond helpfulness, and caused action without permission/authorization. It is now a legal liability issue. Right intentions, wrong methods. This is not a technical situation, it is a process/method problem, that could lead to legal implications. There are boundaries for a reason, and it is the matter to explain why, and for his own protection, and that of the company that employs him.