Hackers Get Novel Defense; the Computer Did It

[moxnix]

Prosecutors looking to throw the book at accused computer hackers have come across a legal defense expected to become even more widespread in an era of hijacked PCs and laptops that threatens to blur the lines of personal responsibility: the computer did it.

The full artical HERE


Isn't this a little like 'The dog ate my homework'?

[skiddieleet]

Very interesting, now I've never done any cracking, but maybe I better put a trojan on my computer just in case I decide to. That way I'll be off the hook. To take it further, I could get a friend to go to a wifi hotspot and connect to my computer through the trojan at the same time I am commiting a crime that way they can view some logs and see that someone was using my computer from a remote location to do this. Or you could do it yourself from the wifi hotspot.
Just my 2 ¢

[nihil]

This has been mentioned before. The loading of malware to cover your tracks is something I have already said I suspect the UK guy of.

I know a way of framing you on a murder 1 rap that is foolproof, provided you are a fool. I could also evade one using similar techniques.

Until laws are passed that say "you are responsible for that computer and all that it does and is on it" this will always be "reasonable doubt" in a truly democratic society.

I guess that is the price of democracy and justice?

BTW.......nah "It was the cat wot done it"

Cheers

[Striek]

Hackers always had this defense; it wa simply never used until recently. The only requirement to the acquittal of a suspect in the industrialized world is any resonable doubt that the accused commited the crime.

What this means, simply, is that lawyers have found a way to convince juries that home computers can be hijacked. You might find it difficult to do this without ISP logs supporting your defense, assuming your lawyer is worth his salt.

[RoadClosed]

In a world where computers are hijacked as a routine and not and exception. That is an arguable defence. I did try the dog thing on a 7th grade teacher. She saw through my plot.

[moxnix]

Heh,heh heh.....I did have a dog eat my homework once. The teacher didn't believe it of course. I did have a heck of a time soaking the bloody homework with enough juice off of a roast to get him to eat it though.

[rmcgoo]

Alright, story time. So I was walking to the bus with a school loaner camera and notebook. The camera had a tape in it for a media tech final, and the notebook had a english final. A neighboor was sweeping off her deck so she moved her furniture near her fence. Shes got a mean, mean, big, mean dog. Her dog escapes her house, jumps a table over the fence, and chases me. So I put my stuff down and begin to run, but the dog stops and starts tearin up my notebook. Then he starts runnin around with my notebook in its mouth totally occupied, so I get go back and get my camera to video tape it, cuz its funny, (dog ate my homework caught on tape).

Then I realize im recording over my media tech final. So thats my story.

[Tiger Shark]

Then I realize im recording over my media tech final

Brilliant...... I can barely type for laughing..... I can imagine your big fat "Oooops" when you remember what is already on the tape......

[rcgreen]

I can see a whole new type of computer career developing here.
You hire yourself out as an expert witness (to the highest bidder)
just like psychiatrists and ballistics experts, testifying about the technical
plausibility of the "computer hijacking" defense.

[Sm0kinP0t]

I guess we have arrived at the point where we can't either be sure one commited a crime or didn't...
h3r3tic said it all, you don't even need to clear logs because you can compromise ur own machine and hack all you want that to the eyes of the world it is still no man's land.

The juridic change nihil proposed is as needed as controversial. In order to make such law, we had to assure free computer education to every person who has a computer (teach it in the schools?), you had to have judges who know more then the basics of computers (in order to understand what the hell was being said at the lawsuit) and still we all know that no box is 100% secure. Even if you have your AV, your soft/hardwareFW, and updates checked by the minute, there will always be a sec. vulnerability that can compromise your box.

If we give it a second thought, lawyers have always own their cases by exposing flaws in their own system, kind of like we users do. And all there is left to do is "update" and "improve" things as we run across them, therefore we can't expect it to be perfect.

[just my opinion]