From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 08:39:49 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Hacking commercial systems.
In-Reply-To: <9510241417.AA26593@zorch.w3.org>
Message-ID: <199510241539.LAA26204@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Phill writes:
> [One vendor's] opinion was that attempting such a crack on a "live" system 
> consitituted conspiracy to commit fraud
[...]
> If a request were made for a sample of material to work on most companies 
> would oblige and a refusal would provide protection against legal tactics. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that the vendor's opinion turns out to be
legally valid (IANAL):

There's something here I don't understand. How would a refusal to provide
a sample for testing/hacking provide protection against possible fraud 
charges for hacking The Real Thing (tm) ?

Maybe that's how the law works (in some jurisdictions), but I don't see a
logical connection. I'm not aware of companies involved in deployed payment
systems throwing samples to the dogs.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>