Google..."tricks"

[TheCotMan]

That works fine in people in the real world, But how do you think the politicals and lawmakers are to respond when the courirer is a machine sitting in a airconditioned room, It sees the information, reads it logs it stores it, it "knows" the information but cannot grasp the concept of information being illigle and therefore reporting said information as say a person might do in a givin situation. After all its just a machine.

In this case, if the machine is the only "party" that has "knowledge" of this, it is not enough, but IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so YMMV. Obviously, someone could argue the point, but that's won't help this discussion much.

I would expect at least one or more people in the company would have to know something about it. Here is where it is cloudy:
* How "specific" does the "knowledge" need to be in order for it to invalidate Common Carrier as a reasonable defense?

Again, I do not know, but I do know that *not* inspecting content gives you a much stronger position than inspecting content does, and once things get "cloudy" we see short trials become long trials (instead of quick dismissals) and long trials mean hefty legal expenses

And then from that were might have laws passed saying that all search engines must report suspisous activities and search queries (what many think burbon is the first step toward). Its a nightmarish situation full of inturpritaions of the law and inturpritations of the inturpritation.

Let us hope it does not go that far. :-/

[Chris]

As for defacers, the world needs them. If we didnt have people "infesting" pages, many people would likely not find/correct the security flaw that was exploited. besides, many defacers aren't extremely malicious, so the damage is minor compared to what could have been done if some blackhat with a bug up his ass found the security hole first.

Are you on crack?

[Gadsden]

As for defacers, the world needs them. If we didnt have people "infesting" pages, many people would likely not find/correct the security flaw that was exploited. besides, many defacers aren't extremely malicious, so the damage is minor compared to what could have been done if some blackhat with a bug up his ass found the security hole first.

You have obvously never worked in a network admin's job... That is about goddamn retarded. That is like saying we need more burgulars to break in homes so people will lock their doors or next time it could be a rapist breaking in. Either way, it is illegal. Yes, it could always be worse. An intrusion is an intrusion, and has to be handled as such. Just because a wanker script-kiddie defaced a website to get their name out (which i think is about the lowest form if digital stupidity, next to spamming) does not mean no harm was done. The admin STILL has to re-do the compromised box to ensure rootkits, etc were not placed. Defacing websites offers NO use at all. You want to help? Let the admin know.