Remix clone Hacker News

> condoning unauthorized computer access

Yeah I'm condoning it, if you're young, just doing it for fun and not causing any real damage. I think that's fairly normal among computer nerds even if it is a federal crime.

▲

netdevphoenix 14 days ago | parent [-]

So you also condone people breaking into personal cloud accounts for "fun"? If someone young breaks into a house for "fun" and not causing any "real" damage, you condone that too? How about a commercial building? When does the line stop?

What does "real damage" even mean here?

▲

pc86 14 days ago | parent [-]

There is clearly a difference between signing into some server just to see if you can, and breaking & entering into a building. Yes of course they're both wrong, you may even think they should both be serious federal crimes, but it's a very clear difference in degree at the very least.

"Real damage" means exactly what any reasonable person would think it means, I don't even understand the question. If you break a door or window to gain access, that's real damage. If you SSH into a server there is no real damage. If you delete files, there is real damage.

▲

netdevphoenix 14 days ago | parent [-]

You are still condoning unauthorized computer access. You are accessing facilities or resources that you are not authorized to access. Just because you are typing on a computer does not make it any less worse.

"Real damage" means more than that. You can enter a building without breaking a door or a window, not sure where you got the notion that is not possible. If you enter a building there is no physical damage but the reputation of the security company managing the building gets damaged once it's found out.

Just because you don't see it, does not mean that the damage is not there. Similarly, if you SSH into a server, the company handling the security gets its reputation tarnished. In both cases, there is a financial penalty that those companies will suffer. Someone in some company will be under crazy stress because of your actions. Just because you don't get to meet that person does not mean that the damage is not real. Similarly, accessing someone's private cloud and viewing their files will cause someone emotional distress. Again, you won't see it but does not make it any less real. Imagine, someone spying on you while you sleep (whether online or in person) or while you are in the toilet, again there is no "real damage" according to you but the emotional distress is very much real.

All those people hacking web cams for "fun" without causing "real damage" are indeed causing emotional distress which very much falls under real damage.

I suggest you review your definition of "real damage" as it is likely to get you into trouble one day. You should not be condoning federal crimes.

	▲	pc86 14 days ago \| parent [-]
		Respectfully, I suggest you spend a bit more time actually making sure you're responding to what people have actually said and not just what you think they're getting at. > You are still condoning unauthorized computer access. Not at all, literally the opposite. You need only to read past one sentence in my post to see: "Yes of course they're both wrong" > You can enter a building without breaking a door or a window, not sure where you got the notion that is not possible. Not once did I say it wasn't possible. I was using that as an example: "If you break a door or window to gain access, that's real damage." If. As in, it's not required to do this, but this is an example of "real damage." > Similarly, if you SSH into a server, the company handling the security gets its reputation tarnished. If you tell people, yes. And that constitutes real damage. If you SSH into a server to prove to yourself you can do it, and then log out, you have still committed a crime but you have not committed any real damage. There are absolutely people in this thread making the arguments that you're responding to. Unfortunately I wasn't one of them.