Consultant Convicted For Non-Invasive Site Access 377
Phillip P Barnett writes "Security consultant Daniel Cuthbert worried that he'd been stung by a phishing scam when he donated to a Tsunami relief effort in London, UK. He was convicted for hacking and lost his job after running a couple of checks on the website in question." From the article: "During the trial, Cuthbert's defence argued that any unauthorised access was entirely innocent. In evidence it was shown that he had attempted to access the tsunami donations site on two occasions and the site's security systems had denied him access. The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." ZDNet also has a commentary piece on what this decision may mean for the future of cybercrime.
seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but suspect there must be more to this story than is being put forth. Part of me wants to believe his defense, "he never tried to defraud", but my distaste for legal mumbo jumbo makes me wonder more about the specifics:
On its face, this looks like serious stuff with serious consequences for seemingly innocent activity and should give pause to any internet users, but I suspect there's more to it than meets the public eye.
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is how you know who to trust - if there is a possible MITM and hidden re-direct, etc.
If this is illegal, then it is illegal to automate these actions as well.
The conclusion from this is that web-spiders are a form of 'hacking', and Google is in violation.
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? Is it just me, or does it seem really strange that he "clicked on a banner ad" while using lynx? He subsequently made a donation to them, and didn't see a confirmation page. Maybe I'm not up-to-date enough on lynx, but last time I used lynx, it didn't want to play very nice with a number of asp/js pages. And what kind of self-respecting geek (and a security expert no
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:2)
Wasn't some guy in UK under suspicion for hacking because he used lynx?
Btw, I use very often elinks2 (links) and that has frames and mouse suport (and with more effort even images), and I click stuff it it a lot of times. The banners are most of the times "accesible" with alt text, sometimes that text is more appealing than a graphic that we tend to ignore.
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I guess that pegs it. The most important thing to remember, if the police come to ask you ANY questions, do not answer them. Get a lawyer, and talk through him.
The way things are going today...whether or not you have done something, it is getting dangerous to talk to the cops about anything.
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:4, Informative)
Every time I have interacted with the police, they have told me a lie like "You were going so fast I didn't think I would be able to catch you!" (I was going 45 MPH on a small stretch of road where the limit dips from 50 to 35 for a brief period while its technically "in a town". Yes, I was speeding, but to say that he couldn't have caught me was ridiculous hperbole.
Another lie: "No, there's way we can ever catch the person who shot your house with paintballs". While the guy was telling me this, another officer radioed him to say they had pulled over a group of teens 2 blocks from my house who all had paintball guns and were shooting up the neighborhood.
Another police lie: "Your friend has already confessed that the two of you commited armed robery." The circumstance was that I was in college and they pulled over me and my friend on suspicion of armed robbery. Apparently two guys in a van had robbed someplace the week before and my friend who I went to lunch with had a van. Since we hadn't commited armed robbery, I knew the policeman was lying. I was too scared to actually say that he was lying (i.e. I didn't say "You are a dirty liar."), but I did say that I did not rob anyone. Of course, in the next room they were telling him the same thing. Fortunately the victim came down and looked at us and said, "No, these were not the guys who robbed me."
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:5, Informative)
"Instead, Judge Purdy found Cuthbert guilty, because he had initially lied to the police about what he had done; Cuthbert originally told the police one story and later changed it."
British Law says that if you know you are not allowed access, you cannot attempt to circumvent system security.
What makes this case so interesting is:
"This is thought to be the first time that a judge had indicated that -- despite the letter of the act -- knowingly accessing a system when unauthorised to do so is not necessarily a crime. "
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the original BoingBoig: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/27/jailed_for_u
and then: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/11/supposed_tsu
In the end, despite his initial lie, all he did was try a directory traversal 'attack' (the
Basically he was trying to answer: "Is this site vulnerable to this easily exploited flaw, and if so, I better call them or my Credit Card number is going to make it's waya round the russian mafia sites in no time".
I don't doubt he was secretly hoping the flaw existed so he could get some fame saving a disaster relief web site.
I guess then technically, if you click the following link, their IDS should flag it as a 'hack' and if you live in jolly ol'england expect a boot at your door: Don't click me or you go to Jail! [bt.com]
If you try it out, let me know how fast their response time is.
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have, on occasion, tried an sql injection and directory traversal, just for the sake of it. See what I can find. Was never looking to deface a site, nor was I looking to steal information. Was just curious if the site was vulnerable, and would probably just report it to them, nothing more. I don't "hack" sites to try
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Funny)
Aren't we supposed to assume innocence before guilt?
Oh, wait, you're posting as AC...
Or.....? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how about picking up a phone and CALLING them. If there is no number to call, donate elsewhere.
Better summary (Score:5, Informative)
'DEC hacking' trial opens
Accused gives evidence
By John Oates
Published Wednesday 5th October 2005 16:22 GMT
Horsferry Road Magistrates Court has heard the first day of evidence against the East London man accused of hacking into a donations site for the tsunami appeal last December.
Daniel James Cuthbert, 28, of Whitechapel, London, is accused of breaches of Section One of the Computer Misuse Act, 1990, on the afternoon of New Year's Eve, 2004. He had earlier pleaded not guilty.
Cuthbert is accused of attempting a directory traversal attack on the donate.bt.com site which handles credit card payments on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee.
Giving evidence on his own behalf, Cuthbert, at times near tears, said he had made a £30 donation to the site, after clicking on a banner advert. Because he received no final thank-you or confirmation page he became concerned it may have been a phishing site, so he carried out two tests to check the security of the site.
The case continues tomorrow. ®
Re:Better summary (Score:2)
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:5, Informative)
Directory traversal, and using lynx.
He gave them £30 (at the time, ~ US$58). This is the opposite of defrauding them...
He clicked on a banner add to donate to the UK's Disasters Emergency Committee's appeal for the December tsunami in Asia, and got no confirmation page. His first thought was that this was a phising site and he'd been scammed. So he panicked and tried the directory traversal...
No. This was AFAIK his first offence of any sort at all - and now his career's in ruins.
The Computer Misuse Act (1990) is an apalling piece of shoddy law - speaking as an IT professional who's actually had to read it. The only thing it's good for is threatening users.
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Informative)
BT's IDS monitors m
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Informative)
Let's assume for a moment the judge didn't have _any_ technical knowledge.
What he did know was that the defendant had lied to police while making his initial statement . I'm pretty sure the judge felt he was on familiar ground at that point. That is what got him convicted, not the technical aspects.
Not only has this cost a man his job, but you luck Brits now have a case to be used as precede
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:seems like there could be more to this story. (Score:3, Interesting)
The simple truth is that Dan is a top notch security guy, who had a prestigious position as lead penetration tester within an investment bank. He is also well known in the app-sec community, and his contributions to OWASP have been fundamental to the widespread success of that organization.
He was working overtime on New Year's Eve, alone in the office, during a time when most people were already well into their third or fourth pint.
D
Much ado about nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
"Instead, Judge Purdy found Cuthbert guilty, because he had initially lied to the police about what he had done; Cuthbert originally told the police one story and later changed it.
Judge Purdy said that Cuthbert was "deliberately trying to throw the police off the trail", by saying one thing and then another.
The fact that Cuthbert had changed his story on how and why he had originally accessed the site was the crucial factor in reaching a conviction, the judge said. "
The article above also says "The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." What it should have said is that Cuthbert DID attempt to defraud the police. Very unprofessional behavior from a supposed "security professional."
Moral of the story: don't lie to the cops about security testing. Take them seriously. Had he been honest, this wouldn't even have been prosecuted.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure I understand the point of convicting someone of a crime unassociated to the lying part. For me, the fact that police are involved in all 3 of these nonviolent actions is the real crime.
The thing to note is no never talk to the cops. Ever. Let your lawyer say what needs to be said. Shut up, defend yourself at trial. You have no reason to talk, as you're innocent until they get facts to find y
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:2)
In the case of that runaway bride, I think they got involved when she was rpeorted missing and thenthings got even worse when she said she had been kidnapped.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)
I quite agree with you about not talking to the police, but remember in this wonderful country, the law says that it may affect your case if you later mention something in court, in your defence, that you didn't mention at the time you were questioned by police.
Personally, I'd li
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:4, Insightful)
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
The average cop doesn't have the faintest clue about legitimate security testing as opposed to malicious hacking. Same tools, same methods, same general sort of people - Only the motivation differs, which the "target" can only discern after-the fact (and since the article mentions he failed to gain access, he can't even establish that much in his own defense). Even another IT security pro would most likely have to seriously consider the exact choice of attacks to discern intent (for example, did he obviously not use easier but more damaging tools for certain parts of the task?).
Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police, whether in the right or not. Because the police have one job - Check off that last little box on their list. If they can do that by throwing away a "cybercriminal" by getting a jury full of people who can't even open email attachments to convict, they WILL. The error here involves changing his story.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
Dude, this is Britain we're talking about. Possession of a winter jacket and a Brazilian sun-tan gets you far, far worse than a hauling away.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't a winter jacket, it was a demin one. He didn't jump the barriers, he walked through them with his ticket, just like any other commuter. He was sitting down in the train when he was grabbed, pinnmed down, and shot eight times (with another three shots missing)
BBC Article [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: "So, the suspect was dangerous?"
Cop: "No, guv, we had him pinned down, he wasn't going anywhere."
Q: "So... Did he have a weapon?"
Cop: "No, just a rail ticket."
Q: "And you had him pinned down?"
Cop: "Yep!"
Q: "At which point you shot him once in the shoulder and seven times in the head?"
Cop: "We wasn't taking any chances, Gov!"
Q: "What, exactly, did you think he might do? Use harsh language???"
Cop: "..."
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:2)
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
Fer christ sake, STFU and ask for a lawyer!
Don't lie to the police, that pisses them off.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, naturally, everybody else is a corrupt, money-grubbing idiot who have no interest in serving society, helping people out or any other noble enterprises, whereas all geeks are paragons of altruism who live in their parent's basement and work tech support so that they can write free software for the greater good.
All the cops that I've met were just trying to do their job. They don't get paid by the conviction. They would much rather be stopping violent criminals and making people safer, but they have to deal with all crime because non-violent crime can damage society just as much as violent crime. I have certainly heard about corruption, bigotry, etc., but haven't seen it myself.
On the other hand, I've known some technical people who have no interest in playing by the rules (on any level). Most people seem to think that cheating the law is some sort of game (although they don't want to play anymore when they lose). I've known geeks whose morals were just as low as any corrupt cop, and heard about those who did just as much damage.
This case is a nice example. If the defendant was forthright and honest, the judge would likely have taken his word and let him go. Because the guy tried to cheat the system, the judge has no reason to believe anything else he says, including the part about how he didn't mean to defraud the site he was visiting, that it was an honest evaluation. As you said, it's hard to tell the difference, so the character of the defendant plays a big role in determining his goals.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3)
Well if you have no work relationship with the company then it is not "legitimate security testing".
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Moral of the story: don't lie to the cops about security testing.
Real Moral of the story: Don't tell police ANYTHING without your lawyer in the room. Ever. It has nothing to do with being helpful or honest. It is about covering your ass against all potential outcomes.
Re:Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, but we can still assert that it was a silly thing for the police to have been questioning him about in the first place. Of course, the police, they were just doing their jobs and trying to enforce the law.
But it's either a bad law, or at least a misuse of the law on the part of those who called the police on this guy. WTF cares if someone hits a site using lynx? WTF cares if someone tries t
Unintended consequence of regulation and control (Score:4, Interesting)
The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.
This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime [lewrockwell.com]), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.
TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation [lewrockwell.com]? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.
Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:2, Insightful)
Which of Cuthbert's rights were violated when he broke the law and was convicted of doing so, again? I missed that part.
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:2)
It's interesting that, much like in Watergate, he got in trouble mostly because of the coverup, not the crime itself.
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:4, Insightful)
After finding no cause to charge him, they instead convicted him of lying. So he was wrongfully accused, but during interrogation he lied.
Crazy world we live in. Why not arrest every tenth person for murder. See if they slip up some fact, then book them.
In my mind, if the original arrest is unfounded, take no action.
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:2)
I'm sorry, abuse?
Does this mean if, for example, your car was stolen with no violence involved, you would be happy if no action was taken? What if your house was burnt down by someone who doesn't like you, but again, no violence was involved. I'm sure this would be acceptable too, right?
Whether you like it or not, the Computer Misuse Act (1990) is here for a reason. It is not a basic human right to access comput
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:3)
I think the point of the GP post was simple: the "law" he broke infringes on basic rights. Just like watching CSS-encrypted DVDs on a Linux box is illegal, certain laws make criminals out of honest citizens.
If I were arrested in Fairbanks, AK, for carrying an ice-cream cone in my pocket, I would hope for some public outrage. Yes, there's a law against it; but that law infringes on my bas
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree with you, but be careful about how you fling about the term "right." Rights are things that all men possess as an incident of being human beings. They cannot be taken away or awarded, you always have them. Governments may only choose to reco
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:2)
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:3, Interesting)
Being convicted for the act of breaking the law is the way it's supposed to work. However, there's a difference - he was convicted because he lied to the cops.
zdnet [zdnet.co.uk] Judge Purdy accepted that Cuthbert had not intended to cause any damage, and also pointed out there was almost no case law in this area.
District judge Mr Q. Purdy, who heard the case, told Cuthbert it was "with deep regret
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:5, Funny)
However, we still don't have any laws against trolling. Shame, really...
Re:Unintended consequence of regulation and contro (Score:2)
If you think this is ok then would it be ok for me to use the
Hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm. (Score:3)
and then lied to the investigators about his entirely innocent activities
In what way is trying to break into someone's system as 'legitimate' ?
Can you tell me what legitimate reasons you could have for breaking into my house (presuming you are not an agent of the state).
And quite rightly so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And quite rightly so... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And quite rightly so... (Score:2)
Re:And quite rightly so... (Score:2)
I don't see how the building in which he's tried is relevant
Re:And quite rightly so... (Score:2)
Re:And quite rightly so... (Score:4, Funny)
You're telling me that the U.K. police beat him, killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave? Just for trying to hack in some charity site a couple of times?
Man, I though they were harsh on people who run in the subway!
couple of checks? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/dec_case/ [theregister.co.uk]
The steps in the story. (Score:2)
Then he gave his credit card info to the site that banner linked to.
Then he wondered if it was a phishing site so he tried to crack it.
Then he lied to the cops when they investigated.
And now he was fired. I for one do not see a problem with that last step given the preceeding 4 steps.
Re:couple of checks? (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like much of an attack to me. Certainly, I hope it's not very effective anymore.
They probably throw the book at him due to the charity nature of the site -- as if doing anything `bad' to a charity (with a worthwhile mission) is worse than doing something `bad' to an average business. (And of course lying to the police and getting caught isn't a good plan either.)
Re:couple of checks? (Score:2)
More info re:Directory Traversal Attacks (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, if you're in the UK, don't type "../" in a URL or you go to jail.
Sounds like he did himself in (Score:3, Insightful)
So although the guys "hacking" was fairly innocent, his response to the police was not. Perhaps he should be convicted of public mischief instead.
Sounds Like He Messed Things Up For Himself (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, he got hosed, but... (Score:2, Funny)
By the way, the first thing that (superficially) struck me about the story was the guy's name:
D an i e l Cuth bert
Re:Yeah, he got hosed, but... (Score:2)
Wow - you're like that guy in A Beautiful Mind. Only instead of working with numbers, you rearrange letters into the names of comic strip characters.
Re:Yeah, he got hosed, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yeah, he got hosed, but... (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
Perjury is a crime, you know.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
In general, no. Lying to the police should only be a crime in well-defined circumstances. It may however be considered evidence that someone knew their behavior was wrong.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally making a statement to the police isn't done under oath.
And really, if the crime was perjury, why wasn't he convicted for perjury and not something else?
Re:Well (Score:2)
Lieing to the police under questioning would probably count as "obstructing the police with their enquiries" if you wanted to push the point.
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
Perjury is a crime, you know.
Perjury is a crime committed in court, not in an interview room. To put this in context, in the USA and many other countries, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing when questioned by the police. Indeed, I believe the Constitution or an amendment (I'm neither a US citizen nor resident) grant citizens the right not to incriminate themselves. I'm not aware of any such right in Britain, and in Britain when you're arrested you are advised that:
In other words, you're strongly "encouraged" not to remain silent.
I'm neither condoning nor condemning Mr. Cuthbert's statements to the police, merely suggesting that we don't know why Cuthbert chose to (allegedly) lie.
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
It's OK to say _nothing_. It's NOT OK to give false statements. If Martha Stewart kept her trap shut, she wouldn't have ended up in jail.
Martha Stewart was arrested and presumably "Miranda-ed" - in a country where it is, indeed, OK to say nothing.
Daniel Cuthbert was arrested and advised that if he kept quiet his defense in court might be compromised - the UK "Miranda" is very different to the warning given in other countries.
The best advice I can give if you're arrested in the UK is state that you will
Re:Well (Score:2)
The difference in meaning is subtle, but present. Of course, there is a world of difference between saying nothing and lying. Lying to the police could fall under wasting police time or attempting to pervert the cause of justice. I would much rather have seen him prosecuted under the former of these than the Computer Misuse Act.
Re:Well (Score:2)
Actually, I believe the portion in italics should read:...
I suspect you're quite right. But that's really the point, isn't it, that the UK caution isn't clear, is intimidating, and does turn otherwise sane people into gibbering idiots. Yes, everyone should keep mum until they've spoken to a solicitor. No, very few people actually do this.
Re:Well (Score:2)
Actually, beyond that, US law protects the "exculpatory 'no'" -- untruthfully saying "I didn't do it!" isn't punished as an additional offense the way a similar lie from a witness would be. That's not the case in most countries, although I don't know about Britain.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK u dont really have the right to remain silent anymore. They changed that in 94 I beleive. What they basically say now upon arrest is
"You could harm your defense if you fail to mention when questiond something that you later rely on in
court"
Headline way off base (Score:2)
No. The consultant was convicted of attempting to access a system which he knew he was not authorized to access. He never got access -- t was the attempts that nailed him.
Wonder how good he is... (Score:3, Funny)
WARNING! (Score:3, Insightful)
Will he trust in the government after? In trials? In the police? The guy feels betrayed by the same government he paid taxes to! What they're teaching him is to be much more careful the next time he tries to hack a site. Yeah, nice way to "reform" a "criminal".
Agh, stupid typo (Score:2)
Wow. That's a pretty vague law... (Score:5, Insightful)
This reads to me something like "If anybody tells you can't do something with a computer, and you do it anyway, it's a crime.".
So, in the UK, to attach criminal liability to your violation of any of my own wishes, I just have to somehow involve a computer.
What, by the way, is a computer in the UK? Do embedded devices count? Don't leave through that automatic door; Mickey here hasn't sold his quota of cars this week, and we want a fair chance to convince you to buy. Whoops--you triggered the photoeye, causing the automatic door to open. I guess you can't get more egalitarian than this--every individual has the right to pass criminal laws.
OK, this seems a really silly example. It is. After all, we trust the authorities to selectively enforce overly broad laws--only prosecuting the real bad guys.
Hell, it works on this side of the pond; why not over there?
Rule Number One... (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I do them with a fully endorsed and NOTARIZED release!
Rule number one:
"Thou shalt not perform any invasive activity against IPs that you do not have defacto administrative control over or have legal release (in hard copy) to do so."
I have no sympathy for the guy.
The comment at the end of the article is crap IMHO: "I've run into a lot of people in the penetration test community over the past few months, and they're all sympathetic to Dan. Their view was that he meri
let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re:let me get this straight (Score:2)
HE BROKE THE LAW (Score:2)
Don't get caught.
Guy should do time for posing as a security guru then getting busted.
Refund (Score:2, Funny)
Avoid the bt.com domain (Score:3, Interesting)
Why Do People Do Stupid Things? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its time to wake up people. First point: Yes he did cause damage. Money was spent investigating the intrusion which is monetary damages. Second Point: He very well could have caused damage had he successfully broken in. Do we not punish crackers now just because they didn't destroy data? Thirdly: He is a professional in the Information Security field! Of all people he should be held to a higher standard because of his career field.
How does this hurt the Penetration Testing career field as well lol (another piece of FUD in the article...) Professional penetration testers have to sign lengthy contracts that state what they are allowed to do in order to protect themselves from prosecution later on the road. Documentation is kept during the process of testing so the testers can show that at point X when they were attempting attack Y they did or did not shut down Server Z... What this guy did was attempt to break into a system that he had no prior consent to do so! Thats illegal and he being a security consultant would know that... I can't just arbitrarily attack a website because I think they might not be real. Sure people might sympathise with me if I was right, but that doesn't mean it makes it legal.
Re:Why Do People Do Stupid Things? (Score:3, Interesting)
If he didn't break in, how could there be money spent investigating the intrusion?
If you walk up to a store, and rattle the door to see if it is locked it is not a crime. If the company has a camera watching the door your not held for any liabilty to pay them back for money spent on the guy reviewing the camera tapes.
Re:Why Do People Do Stupid Things? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
DEC - I'd have panicked too. (Score:5, Insightful)
have a look at http://www.dec.org.uk [dec.org.uk]. They are currently supporting as campaign to help the worthy cause of the situation in the Niger. Click on the donate button and you will be taken to a shocking rendition of a 1997-esque payment page that looks awful. So I imagine our man Cuthbert looked again at the dec.org.uk site and it looks bonafide enough and also the whois entry stacks up.
I remember at the time that the BBC News carried a story at, or about the time of the Hogmany (31st Dec 2004) regarding fake websites. I could only find this story [bbc.co.uk] on BBC website 6 days after the alledged incident.
so our man cuthbert panics. As you can see the basic link and page to securetrading.net (not even a .co.uk). Remember that 31-DEC-2004 is a friday before a long holiday weekend. So there will no-one to phone. He looks at the certificate for the server-side SSL - "Secure trading Ltd" a UK company. But the whois entry is privately registered and does not have any standard company details on it - it is also registered abroad (which isn't a big worry, but remember this is a UK gov't sponsored website)
My next port of call is Companies House - where all UK Ltd companies have to be, by law, registered. So using their webcheck facility - it is company number 04591066 with an address in south east london. Not a government organisation, but seems wholly owned by another unknown company UC Media? securetrading.co.uk? no, they're someone else. back to companies house - searching for UC Media, can't find them, but there is an entry for UC Group Ltd at the same address. bingo. hang on. there are two insolvency notices on this company...
I'm sorry but I would have also panicked.
This is like... thought police (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not matter if you have safe cracking tools in the garage at home, if you are simply standing outside the jewelry shop, and check to see if the door is locked or anyone is inside, this doesn't mean that you are attempting to steal diamonds. Sure, he may have had tools on his machine, but that is no different than saying a cop has a gun, and looked like he was trying to break into the store when the door was locked. Things are not always as they appear, and convicting on the basis of intention, especially when it is not overly easy to see the intention, is just wrong.
We have no need of, or room for, thought police in civilized society.
Of course, I may have missed a salient point here, but it just seems wrong to convict without evidence of harm.
In the case of where this seems to happen, like dangerous driving (intoxicated or not) it has been shown that this behavior does lead to accidents, and removing the driver from public roads is a safety measure that does not harm anyone. This is the reason for various lane markings, speed limits, etc.
In this case, there was no speed limits or lane markings, only a locked gate type of guidance. Convicting this man of attempting to steal when there is no blatant evidence is just wrong, and sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Banks don't keep their cash funds out on the sidewalk for a reason. If they did, and it went missing, what exactly would the courts say?
Additionally, it doesn't seem to ring true that a 'security expert' would leave such a trail as to be caught if he was truly trying to break into the system?
I hope the article gets modded "Funny" (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously...again...is that me reading between the lines or ...
On Thursday, Daniel Cuthbert [...] was found guilty of breaching Section One of the Act [...]. He admitted attempted to access the Web site, which was collecting donations for victims of last year's tsunami.
So I understand that he "admitted accessing the web site"...Oh my...I just clicked on my "Slashdot" bookmark and accessed the web site. Is this not allowed any more?
The article also states:
Under Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, 1990, any unauthorised access to a computer site can be considered a crime, if the person accessing the system knows that he is not authorised to access the site. As the Act says, "a person is guilty of an offence if: he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer and the access he intends to secure is unauthorised and he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case."
So basically, I have been testing my web application all morning. As it turns out, I was testing the ACEJI security configuration and got a lot of "access denied", which I was expecting since I wrote the system.
This scenario falls under the Act description. I should be jailed!
OK...I think that's not me...I think this world is getting dangerously ignorant and stupid.
Liar Liar PANTS ON FIRE!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
"WHERE DO I START?!" you're probably thinking.
Well, now let's turn the tables. I'll give you an example of the tides turning -
Last year, on my 18th birthday, I partied a little bit too hard. After hours of drinking, we went for a drive (YES, we DID have a sober driver.). Unfortunately, we ended up in a situation that the cops were called, and my 4 buddies and I had to spend the rest of my 18th birthday shackled to the walls in a PA State Police barracks. Now, at this point, I was too drunk to write, so they just made me sit there and did their rounds. After a few hours I see one... two... and then three... go up for their mugshot and then leavc... and then they finally let me go.
So, I go outside to meet my friends and try to find them a way home, and I promptly get punched square in the face. "What the FUCK was that for?", I thought. Well, it turns out the state police, despite my inability to drive, write, or even talk without sounding like a raging alcoholic, had told my friends I had written a confession that said A - we had broken the windows (what got us there in the first place) and that B - everyone had been drinking. It would be in <i>their</i> best interest to do the same. So they did.
I could go into another example of the same thing happening to someone else, but I'm sure everyone's heard enough of them.
When my long-forgotten ancestors accepted this nation's founders' idea for government, they placed their trust in it for not only themselves, but everyone down the line, too. I've even heard cops say that "pig" stands for "Pride, Integrity, Guts". What's that middle word there?
If you would like your citizens to behave and be honest people of high moral standards, then you MUST do the same. With deceit comes dissention, and with dissention, revolution is born. Those that lead must do so by example, and soon enough, those that should be removed from society will become very evident.
To put it short, How can you trust a liar? You can't, no matter how truthful they are.
Apparently this is what he did (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently some dynamic sites just grab whatever's after
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the mistake in your reasoning. The idea that the cops would care about the car theft is simply false. There may be a few police out there who would care, but none in my experience. A friend of mine once witnessed a few guys breaking into a corvette outside a nightclub in Houston (they wer