Table of ContentsHacking, Crime, and PunishmentSummaryIntroduction The Predator and the PreyIssuesDo Our Laws Address Hacking Adequately and ResponsiblyIs the Punishment Fit for the Crime?Hacking Has Are there redeeming qualities?Arguments for and againstIs punishment right for the crime?Philanthropic or ethical hackingIncreased securityIntellectual growthAnalysis and recommendations Finding a balanceFitting punishment for the crimeResponsibilityRaising the barFreeHacking, Crime and PunishmentSummaryThe purpose of this article is to explore the consequences of computer hacking and cracking in the United States. It briefly covers the laws affecting computer hacking and their relevance. A large section is devoted to arguments for and against hacking with the aim of identifying the benefits and losses of such activities for individuals, businesses and society as a whole. Analyzing the pros and cons of hacking is essential to determining the weight of penalties attached to IT security crimes. Finally, a recommendation on what needs to be reviewed and changed, and what is acceptable. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIntroduction The Predator and the PreyJohn was a child. However, at only fourteen years old, he could break into most computer systems. One day during the summer, he was sitting at his computer as usual. Bored, he started going through his live IP address logs. After some port scans, he identified one. He recognized a few of the ports, 21, 134 and 31337. He recognized 31337 as the digital representation of ELEET. Remember that this is the port used by the Sub7 Trojan program for remote access. He downloaded a Sub7 client and connected to this unknown remote system. He began to look around and, finding nothing very interesting, decided to let his victim know what was happening. Sub7 has a utility to hijack the mouse and display users' monitor output. Using this, he laughingly took control of the user's mouse while they were browsing the internet looking at pornographic images. He closed the browser and its plethora of pop-ups, then opened Notepad. He typed certain things to scare his victim, such as: "It's your mother." You were very naughty Richard. He had discovered her name earlier while going through her files. Finally, after having some fun, he says: You were hacked by SUB7. Get an antivirus, you idiot. What he didn't know was that the computer he hacked belonged to a 56-year-old lawyer. This lawyer, although not technically savvy, knew his rights. Three months later, after hiring a security expert and numerous communications with his ISP, he tracked down his attacker. He went to the police with the evidence, who then showed up at John's home. John was arrested, taken to court and sentenced to 6 months in juvenile prison. Questions Do our laws adequately and responsibly address computer hacking? Is the punishment appropriate for the crime? First, does it matter that the punishment fits the crime? The majority of people would say yes, for various reasons. For example, some argue that the more unacceptable the crime is to society, the harsher the penalties must be to deter others from committing it. Others argue that we have a right to fair punishment under the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Whatever thereasons, society has made it clear that it believes the punishment should fit the crime. Hacking advocates and civil liberties organizations like the EFF have complained that in some cases the penalties far outweigh the crime. They claim that the laws regarding computer hacking are unfair and that the penalties are disproportionate to similar crimes. Law enforcement and politicians believe the sanctions are justified and fair. In John's example, was he treated fairly by the law. Did the fact of having accessed another's computer, even if it only alerted the user to a vulnerability, justify his stay in a juvenile prison? Does piracy have any redeeming qualities? Although many people perceive hacking as a purely destructive activity, there can be some benefits. to this. It could very well be detrimental to our society if allowed to run wild, much like a disease. However, even an illness has its beneficial elements. An illness can strengthen the body's immune system, which improves the overall health of the individual. If our immune systems weren't trained by mildly infectious diseases, we would indeed be in bad shape if we caught a particularly nasty one. Are hackers similar to biological diseases, which have their positive traits?Arguments for and againstIs the punishment fit for the crime?In the state of California, residents are subject to California Penal Code 502, which states between other: Knowingly accessing and taking without authorization, copying or using data from a computer, computer system or computer network, or creating or copying any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing inside or outside of a computer, computer system or computer network. Any person who contravenes any of the provisions. . . is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, or by such fine and this prison sentence. Combine this with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which, according to Jessica Litman, states that every time a work appears in your computer's RAM, you are making an actionable copy of it (Digital Copyright p28), which which can result in harsh penalties for seemingly harmless crimes. To put it succinctly, if you simply look at other people's records, you could face a prison sentence of up to three years. The punishment for the same crime without computer use is only one year (CA Penal Code 631). Yet for many, the prevalence of hacking and its disproportionate cost to individuals, businesses, and government justifies the disproportionate penalties. A more serious example is that under the Antiterrorism Act of 2001, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) may be considered acts of terrorism. Under the CFAA, defacing a website or simply spamming another user would result in a small fine. However, since the anti-terrorism law, these offenses are punishable by 40 years in prison. For many, this is a shockingly high penalty for such a minor offense. Law enforcement officials argue that such harsh penalties help suspects plea bargain. This saves them a huge amount of time and money, allowing them to spend more money on other important issues, like the war on drugs or investigating violent crimes. It's necessaryThey often hire IT security professionals to track down cybercriminals, which costs a lot of money (around $150 per hour). A third example is Cal Poly student Paul Reed. Paul performed a port scan using a computer on campus. In accordance with Cal Poly's Responsible Use Policy, port scans are prohibited. Checking a bank for security cameras before a robbery is the rough equivalent of a port scan. While robbing a bank is certainly illegal, walking around looking for cameras certainly isn't. Defenders of this policy argue that by far the most common reason for scanning a computer's ports is to obtain information directly used to break into that machine. For this reason, they rationalize port scanning as a deportable offense. Although Paul was not deported, he encountered serious legal problems. Philanthropic or Ethical HackingIBM defines ethical hacking as hacking aimed at finding and fixing security vulnerabilities. Ethical hackers are sometimes employed by companies to perform security audits. These are most often individuals or groups who hack networks and then inform administrators of the exploited security vulnerabilities. Some businesses find this type of activity beneficial as it is an inexpensive way to identify potential problems. This process can lead to administrative hassles, as they feel that their rights and privacy have been violated and their resources have been unfairly used. Also, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the ethical hacker from the malicious cracker. This leads the breached company to take legal action against the hacker, regardless of their intent. Some ethical hacking involves finding errors in products that can be used to gain unauthorized access to systems or information. The ethical hacker then provides this information to developers and the general public. This knowledge helps developers create a fix for the exploit. By informing the public of the problem, the hacker is warning them of possible security breaches. It also puts pressure on product creators to fix the problem before too many customers are harmed by the flaw. Many companies complain that this damages the reputation of their products and costs them lost revenue. Increased Security A consequence of the ubiquity of hacking is that businesses are encouraged to maintain higher security standards. This creates the need for more rigorous testing, better design and a higher level of professionalism in the field if the company wishes to maintain the trust of its customers. This provides the public with more secure and better tested software. The trade-off for higher quality merchandise is increased costs, delayed release schedules, and possibly a reduced feature set. This is mainly due to increased production and operating costs resulting from enhanced safety measures. So while end users may benefit from a more secure product, they may suffer by receiving a less valuable product for their money. Intellectual Growth Laws that prevent hacking also prevent the intellectual development of hackers who frequently push the limits of their abilities through exploration. of systems. The difficulties encountered during piracy put the individual at,.