The Man Who Hacked the Bank of France 184
First time accepted submitter David Off writes "In 2008 a Skype user looking for cheap rate gateway numbers found himself connected to the Bank of France where he was asked for a password. He typed 1 2 3 4 5 6 and found himself connected to their computer system. The intrusion was rapidly detected but led to the system being frozen for 48 hours as a security measure. Two years of extensive international police inquiries eventually traced the 37-year-old unemployed Breton despite the fact he'd used his real address when he registered with Skype. The man was found not guilty in court today (Original, in French) of maliciously breaking into the bank."
NSFW (Score:3, Informative)
NSFW photo in sidebar, thanks to Femen.
Re:That is not reasonable security (Score:5, Informative)
In the US I think we'd have class action lawyers going after them immediately for lack of security due diligence. They would deserve it, too.
Oh, you mean like when Gary McKinnon [wikipedia.org], who similarly walked into unsecured US military and NASA computer. The difference - oh yes, no one noticed for ages!
The Banque de France was not hacked (Score:2, Informative)
Read in French : http://www.pcinpact.com/news/73975-non-systeme-informatique-banque-france-na-pas-ete-pirate.htm
He phoned to a technical service used a bad code that resulted an alarm.
Due to this overrated alarm the site was closed during 48h...
Re:He just used a German name... (Score:4, Informative)
There were a lot of people in France that did more than that. They stood up for other people. I was called the French underground.
Re:amazing (Score:4, Informative)
. If a reasonable person would consider the house not to be a place of public accommodation, then opening the door and walking in is sufficient for a B&E charge. The defendant can offer a defense by claiming he is an invitee or that he had reason to believe such, but he has the burden of proof if the act itself is not in dispute.
Convicting someone of a crime requires three elements: Intent, knowledge, and the act. All three ordinarily have to be proven before someone is guilty. If you were taking prescription drugs, for example, and experienced memory loss and confusion as a result, and through no fault of your own walked into the wrong building... there's no intent. No crime was committed. Then there's knowledge; Say you did intend to enter the building, but didn't know it was private or off limits (for example, at the mall you're looking for a bathroom and open an unmarked door into a private "secure" area. You're caught by a security guard. You intended to enter, but you couldn't have known it was wrong to do so. No crime was committed. And then there's the act of entering itself -- self-explanatory.
So that covers the three main elements of a crime: You have to prove all three for someone to be guilty. Now, let's say you've managed to prove all three elements. Good for you! Now we ge to discuss defenses and excuses. A defense is something where the act itself would normally be considered criminal, but the circumstances make it justified. For example, normally punching someone in the face is assault, but if you had reason to believe you were in imminent danger (whether or not this is true), you can (in most jurisdictions) strike first. You had no choice, you had to respond. An excuse is when you had a choice not to commit a criminal act, did so anyway, but the response was socially justified. For example, if you saw a child being attacked by an adult: You have no obligation to intervene, but most people would. What you did was socially acceptable then.
Now that we've finished my Really Condensed Intro To Criminal Law, let's discuss your assertion: Mere presence in someone's (unlocked) house is breaking and entering. Breaking and entering is not a crime of strict liability. Strict liability crimes are ones where only the act itself has to be proved; For example possession of stolen property. It requires intent -- intent in this case is the breaking part.
In some jurisdictions the use of force can be as simple as pushing open a door, in others it needs to be prying open a window or picking a lock, etc. It can also be threatening someone; The definition varies, but you get the idea. Typically, however, the room itself can't have been open to enter; a door without a lock mechanism, or a door left open, or a door left unlocked, in some jurisdictions it doesn't constitute a use of force to open it and enter.
Secondly, there has to be knowledge that the residence is used primarily for habitation -- not occasionally. There are many buildings you'd consider a home that people don't live in. Executives and CEOs often have houses that are used only to host parties, and are built as such. They are zoned residential, but that's not the purpose of the house. To constitute breaking and entering (also known as burglary), you have to been able to reasonably conclude it was primarily used for habitation. And then there's that pesky issue of it being unoccupied... and that in some jurisdictions it has to take place outside regular business hours.
All of those conditions have to be met for the act itself to be considered burglary; Otherwise, it's a different crime (or no crime at all).
If there was a sign saying "Private property", or "Authorized personnel only", or "By invitation only", then you'd be correct. But most people's homes have no such sign. It's just a building; And there's no way someone could know ahead of time the intent of the owner, or even whether it was public or private property