• 0 Posts
  • 276 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: April 13th, 2024

help-circle






  • I’d start with the following, and refine if necessary:

    “Gaining unauthorized access to a protected computer resource by technical means.”

    • Port scanning --> Not hacking because there isn’t any access to resources gained*
    • Using default passwords that weren’t changed --> Not hacking because the resource wasn’t protected*
    • Sending spam --> Not hacking because there isn’t any access to resources gained
    • Beating the admin with a wrench until he tells you the key --> Not hacking because it’s not by technical means.
    • Accessing teacher SSN’s published on the state website in the HTML --> Not hacking because the resource wasn’t protected, and on the contrary was actively published**
    • Distributed denial of service attack --> Not hacking because there isn’t any access to resources gained

    * Those first two actually happened in 2001 here in Switzerland when the WEF visitors list was on a database server with default password, they had to let a guy (David S.) go free
    ** The governor and his idiot troupe eventually stopped their grandstanding and didn’t file charges against Josh Renaud of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, luckily











  • Since the others tackled polygraph’s uselessness, I want to comment on another angle:

    I think fundamentally in such a case it will be easy for you to convince yourself that you’re telling the truth in the moment you say it.

    After all you are telling the truth to a version of the question, and you only have an assumption that the questioner means a different version of the question. Even if it’s a good assumption, nothing in particular makes your version worse, in fact you could argue it’s better.

    That combined should make it easy to mentally gloss over the contradiction. So I think your physiological reaction will be indistinguishable from telling the truth on control questions.