Re: what to do with a script kiddie

Dave Dittrich wrote:
> 
> You can't say there is no harm in engaging in coversation with
> someone who obviously doesn't care about breaking the law through
> computer intrusion.  They may try to retaliate against you, in any of
> a number of ways (DDoS comes to mind, for some strange reason... ;)

I appreciate that; but that is a matter of self-protection, not of ethics.

> They may chose to destroy evidence on all systems they control by
> deleting everything, causing significantly more damage than they
> otherwise would consider if they didn't know they had been
> discovered.

THAT is a legitimate point, and could be said to be an ethical issue.

> There are many reasons why it is a Bad Idea to engage with an
> attacker, to try to take over their systems, disable them, etc.  This
> is a complex area of ethics and the law that is not well understood 
> by the general public, and can cause great harm if not done by people
> who are well versed in the risks and perceived benefits.

But we were discussing the legitimacy or otherwise of just joining an
IRC channel. Do I understand that US wiretap legislation could render
joining an IRC channel unlawful?
> 
> The default should be "don't do anything that lets the attacker know 
> about the fact you have discovered their actions," and "don't do 
> anything that affects (alters, disables, etc.) other computers you do
>  not own."

"Don't let the attacker know" - point already taken. "Don't interfere
with computers that you have no right to access" - that's hacking, and
it's illegal (and trivially unethical).
> 
> 
>> Perhaps "ethics" is the wrong term; aren't we really talking about 
>> how to snoop on snoopers without putting onself in peril of legal 
>> action?
> 
> 
> Snooping on snoopers *itself* puts one in peril of legal action.

I don't live in the USA; here in the UK, the only laws about wiretapping
apply to tapping phone lines - not to snooping around on the internet.
There are laws against hacking here, but they are couched in terms that
refer to unauthorised access to computers; using an IRC server doesn't
seem to be an example of hacking.
> 
> 
>> From a truly ethical POV, it seems to me that passive observation 
>> of potentially criminal acts is more unethical than intervention.
> 
> 
> This is a matter of both laws and ethics.  Those are not exclusive 
> (regardless of lawyer jokes to the contrary. ;)
> 
> "Passive observation" for no purpose other than watching someone 
> commit crimes can be a violation of electronic communication privacy 
> laws (i.e., "wiretapping").

But I think not in the UK.

However I appreciate these explanations of the thinking behind these
"ethical" principles.

-- 
Jack.