"There weren't any signs saying, 'Don't go in.'

Quote:

---

hmmmm, i do believe lawyers that defend/lie for people that are (a) obviously guilty

---

Bold annotations are my own.

I am by no means an expert in jurisprudence, but the phrase "obviously guilty" does not sit with 'innocent until proven guilty' and the right of 'due process' under Anglo-American jurisprudence. Note: 'innocent until proven guilty' is not codified in the US Constitution but, "is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

In English law, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." The standard to which it [guilt] must be proven is, "beyond all reasonable doubt."

In US Law,, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec3

Also, see "Specific factors that define a crime, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to obtain conviction. Elements that must be proven are (1) that a crime actually occurred (actus reus), (2) that the accused intended the crime to happen (mens rea), (3) a timely relationship between the first two factors."

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/Aopc/Glossary/e.htm

Hence, there is a codified judicial process that determines 'innocence' or 'guilt' based on the bedrock principle "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Regards,
Riotgirl

P.s. All that googling took me back to studying 'Politics' and having to remember elements of jurisprudence such as the extent of "executive privledge".

Quote:

---

Also, see "Specific factors that define a crime, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to obtain conviction. Elements that must be proven are (1) that a crime actually occurred (actus reus), (2) that the accused intended the crime to happen (mens rea), (3) a timely relationship between the first two factors."

---

Quote:

---

and his attorney, Allan Williams, said his client had no criminal intent. "He didn't use any hacking tools. The system was open," Williams said. "There weren't any signs saying, 'Don't go in.'" Phillips previously told officials he had no intention of using the information to harm anyone.

---

Quote:

---

(1) that a crime actually occurred (actus reus)

---

Isn't he saying my client went into the computer system and stole the files, so really he pleading guilty for hacking the system but pleading not guilty for intent to use the information to defraud.

Quote:

---

(2) that the accused intended the crime to happen (mens rea)

---

If he intended for it to happen or not he committed a crime. If i take out my gun and kill some one but i didn’t intended to kill him dose not matter i still committed a crime. so if he intended for it to happen or not is really irrelevant

Quote:

---

(3) a timely relationship between the first two factors.

---

His lawyer is saying that he did it and they have the evidence to prove it about 37,000 socials to prove it.

Obviously the university did not practice due care and due diligence in the protection of their systems. The reason, as best practices, you are supposed to put up banners and even minimal protection mechanisms is so someone can't say, “Ooops, I accidentally invaded that system.” If you can prove that someone bypassed some sort of authentication mechanism, then you can prove that they knew they were somewhere they were not supposed to be, even if you don't use any “hacking” tools.

I think that is a good point sysmin770, but a problem for curious people not such a problem for admins is that most people have no idea of what could have happened, might have happened, or can happen with this kind of a break in or how it is done. so when a person is put on trial for something like this the Jude and jury alike have no idea what he did or didn't do all they really need to hear the that some one broke into a computer system and stole a bunch of socials and they will automatically convict them because all they know is that "hackers" are mean and malicious people who like to destroy stuff and that’s what they have been brought up to believe and so the prosecutor will not need much evidence agents him even if the system was unsecured and he was just messing with it and found all this stuff and their was nothing saying not to enter or that this file is not to be seen by unauthorized people he will still go to jail because of uneducated people so puting up a banner or something saying don’t access really isn't needed because on uneducated people but I think that it should not be needed.

Almost as a guide line, they could use the WIFI laws to define if he had illegal intent.

If my home network is set up on an open WAP with no filtering or WEP/WPA and the SID open and available, anyone who is in range of my WAP is then allowed to connect to it and gain free internet access. (not access to my network computers though) In fact, it would be hard for them to not connect to it, if there is not another WAP also in range that they could connect to also.

As soon as I disable the SID broadcast, and or make use of WEP/WPA and IP/MAC filtering then for them to bypass these protections and connect to my WAP (for any reason) is illegal.

This guy though, even if he didn't use any 'hacking/cracking' tools, went into the system and copied data from it. If it was a wired system, he would have to have made a physical connection, like openning a closed door. Even on a wireless system, to gain entry to the network computors he would have had to purposefully made a connection through the netbios or some other means.

Just being curious can not be used as an excuse. That would be like being a guest in somebodies home, and poking through their drawers and cabnits. And then taking what ever he wanted.

At the very least it would be an invasion of privacy, and then to take things would be componded into theft.

Quote:

---

Just being curious can not be used as an excuse. That would be like being a guest in somebodies home, and poking through their drawers and cabnits. And then taking what ever he wanted.

---

if your refering to my statment that i made about curious people what i ment by curious people was people who actualy ment no harm who did not go through netbios or use a trice to gain access but someone who was just messing around with a comp and found out that they could gain access to something they are not allowed access to i did not mean some one like the guy in the artical who we all know just wanted the socials and other info for profit at the coast of others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Riot
if your refering to my statment that i made about curious people what i ment by curious people was people who actualy ment no harm who did not go through netbios or use a trice to gain access but someone who was just messing around with a comp and found out that they could gain access to something they are not allowed access to i did not mean some one like the guy in the artical who we all know just wanted the socials and other info for profit at the coast of others.

---

But then no one would probably ever even know they have been there, unless they told someone.

Quote:

---

But then no one would probably ever even know they have been there, unless they told someone.

---

Ture very true.

Just because its the law, doesnt make it right

In respect to what was said about lawyers defending guilty parties and lying for them also, in reality, inside the courtroom there is no right or wrong, its just a game lawyers play to see how many people they can get to believe their story... simple as that. once a verdict has been given, the facts and truths are irrelevant as the "truth" is now what the judge/jury decided.

Also, i just wanted to say that the system is not fair, considering innocent people can be prosocuted and the guilty to be let off - Just goes to show that justice really is blind.


CTO

Doggon’ better ante-up my two bits as well.

True story that runs somewhat parallel to this scenario and I would imagine the ex-student will suffer the same fate.

Quote:

---

There weren't any signs saying, 'Don't go in.'

---

I knew a young man who was out running around one night and he wanted some booty so he headed over to a girlfriend’s house. He tried the door and found it unlocked so he entered. He’s still in jail.

cheers