Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Laws in Ireland regarding hacking?

  • 07-03-2006 10:13am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭


    Hello,

    I don't know if anyone can help with this. Hopefully someone can.

    Scenario -

    I own a website. Rival website is logging into private areas of the website to snoop my design etc. For example, this would be similar to me logging in under another users account on boards.ie to read their private messages.

    Is this legal or illegal in Ireland? Is it hacking, even if they got the username/password without using an exploit? (i.e. they guessed it or something like that.)

    Any pointers appreciated.

    Cheers.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭NutJob


    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0717137015/qid=1141728470/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_3_5/203-6621183-6263940


    Read it the laws are complicated and ull be surprised whats actually illegal(alot more than most people think).


    I have no intention in giving half arsed legal advice but i will say dont do anything stupid itll hurt.

    oh and a solicitor is a good thing recommend them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭liamo


    If they're logging into private areas without permission then it's illegal.

    What constitutes permission though? If you're running a public website then you're giving permission to the world at large to access it. If a user can create an account which gives them further privileges (eg to access private areas) then that, to me, constitutes permission to access those areas.

    Of course, this is just complete speculation on my part because I don't know the exact details of your situation, nor am I a solicitor.

    NutJob's suggestion to consult a solicitor is a good one. If it's important, it's worth spending some money on it.

    Regards,

    Liam


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 888 ✭✭✭themole


    dublindude wrote:
    Is this legal or illegal in Ireland? Is it hacking, even if they got the username/password without using an exploit? (i.e. they guessed it or something like that.)

    AFAIK, thats illegal.

    It doesn't matter how thet got the username/password. What matters is that they did not receive it from you.

    I could be wrong on that.

    I have this book

    i will give it a look through.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    Question: Would the basis for an action around such an act have to be enforced in the country of the owner, or where the server is based (such as with copyrights)?

    So, if your server is not in Ireland, is it relevant whether its legal here?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭Duffman


    Might be relevant:

    Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 - Section 9:
    Unlawful use of computer.



    9.—(1) A person who dishonestly, whether within or outside the State, operates or causes to be operated a computer within the State with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, is guilty of an offence.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    liamo wrote:
    If they're logging into private areas without permission then it's illegal.

    What constitutes permission though? If you're running a public website then you're giving permission to the world at large to access it. If a user can create an account which gives them further privileges (eg to access private areas) then that, to me, constitutes permission to access those areas.

    Of course, this is just complete speculation on my part because I don't know the exact details of your situation, nor am I a solicitor.

    NutJob's suggestion to consult a solicitor is a good one. If it's important, it's worth spending some money on it.

    Regards,

    Liam

    as long as no information is changed or destroyed, or used for personal gain it's not illegal.

    proving they used the information for personal gain is a tough one.

    all logs can not be used as admissible eveidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭liamo


    ntlbell wrote:
    as long as no information is changed or destroyed, or used for personal gain it's not illegal.

    proving they used the information for personal gain is a tough one.

    all logs can not be used as admissible eveidence.
    I don't think that's right. Wasn't there a case in the UK recently where a chap donated money to an on-line charity, wasn't sure if the site was genuine and snooped around a little. The judge was very sympathetic but he was found guilty.

    I would imagine our laws are similar. If I snuck into your house I would be guilty of breaking and entering (or, at the very least, trespassing) even if I did no damage or stole anything.

    Regards,

    Liam


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭Bamboozled


    It happened us with one of our larger sites.
    We ended up in the Garda Headquarters with the fraud squad and dealing with international squads because of the server being in belgium.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    liamo wrote:
    I don't think that's right. Wasn't there a case in the UK recently where a chap donated money to an on-line charity, wasn't sure if the site was genuine and snooped around a little. The judge was very sympathetic but he was found guilty.

    I would imagine our laws are similar. If I snuck into your house I would be guilty of breaking and entering (or, at the very least, trespassing) even if I did no damage or stole anything.

    Regards,

    Liam

    This is not the UK, and this is nothing to do with breaking and entering.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭liamo


    ntlbell wrote:
    This is not the UK, and this is nothing to do with breaking and entering.
    Don't be so facetious and pedantic. It was quite obvious that I was making an analogy to breaking into a computer. And as for my reference to the UK, you'll find that the UK and Irish laws are very similar and, in fact, most Irish laws are based on UK law.

    If you'd like to get specific about it, here's a couple of extracts from the Cork Online Law Review 2005.

    The two main offences regarding hacking in Ireland are found in the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The ‘basic hacking offence' within Section 5 prohibits the accessing of another person's data, via a computer, without that said person's consent.

    So, even if the information is not used or damaged, the act of accessing the data is an offence. I believe this is the point I was making.

    ... the United Kingdom promulgated the Computer Misuse Act 1990 into law, which served as the model for many other countries' legislative framework, including Ireland .

    This, I believe, supports the reference I made to the UK.

    Instead of making smart, unhelpful, sulky comments that add nothing to a debate or a thread, try backing up your statements or saying nothing at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    liamo wrote:
    The two main offences regarding hacking in Ireland are found in the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The ‘basic hacking offence' within Section 5 prohibits the accessing of another person's data, via a computer, without that said person's consent.

    So, even if the information is not used or damaged, the act of accessing the data is an offence. I believe this is the point I was making.


    Instead of making smart, unhelpful, sulky comments that add nothing to a debate or a thread, try backing up your statements or saying nothing at all.

    Yes and comparing computer crime to breaking into a house is very helpfull.

    it's about as helpfull as that law, in real life situations, useless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    NTL,

    Liama is correct. Dont get in a huff because you were giving crap information out about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

    Duff also gives good advise. theres little more too be said as both have made the point well. good posts!

    will add 1 thing however, server area is not a requirement but its helpful and co-operation between nations means maximum charges and penalties for offenders.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    NTL,

    Liama is correct. Dont get in a huff because you were giving crap information out about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

    Duff also gives good advise. theres little more too be said as both have made the point well. good posts!

    will add 1 thing however, server area is not a requirement but its helpful and co-operation between nations means maximum charges and penalties for offenders.

    The information was given basesd on the fact that the laws today in ireland are not specific enough for _real_ life computer crime scenario's.

    I wasn't specifically talking about the OP's issue.

    Because someone quotes a law doesn't mean they know they're talking about, I've worked in many ISP's for many years and have been involved in alot of these types of issues, and this law is for the most part is useless.

    I'm too old to huff :rolleyes:

    To the OP get in touch with a solicitor, I'm confident enough there's nothing he can do that i'll pay your legal fee's if he can!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    Maybe if ISP's were helpful with the investigations and not stand in the way and block police efforts more crime would be solved such as the Indymedia saga in the UK

    You know little of the law and you were proven comepletely wrong in your earlier comments. How do you explain the below comments? They are 100% ignorant and incorrect and another user called you on it (without any legal knowledge, training or experience just common sense)
    ntlbell wrote:
    as long as no information is changed or destroyed, or used for personal gain it's not illegal

    and for future reference this quote would refer to an offence under Section 6 or 7, Criminal justice (Theft and fraud offences) Act 2001. Obtaining services or goods by deception.
    ntlbell wrote:
    proving they used the information for personal gain is a tough one.

    His comments about breaking an entering (tresspass with intent in Ireland) was quite a good analogy I thought.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    M


    and for future reference this quote would refer to an offence under Section 6 or 7, Criminal justice (Theft and fraud offences) Act 2001. Obtaining services or goods by deception.


    His comments about breaking an entering (tresspass with intent in Ireland) was quite a good analogy I thought.

    Why for future reference?

    it actually is part of section 9

    .—(1) A person who dishonestly, whether within or outside the State, operates or causes to be operated a computer within the State with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, is guilty of an offence.
    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.



    so if you scan a network, which is not ilegal are you accessing data?

    if you make a connection to a machine on port 22 which is open and exposed to the outside world are you accessing data?



    if you login to the machine have you accessed data?



    you login to the machine, do nothing, log off have you accessed data?



    Don't start quoting laws that YOU do not understand to try and prove I have no understanding.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    By ignoring the first part of my post do you admit you are wrong?

    Secondly, I enforce these laws and understand them perfectly. You were the one that was unaware of such laws and I posted from memory not a copy and paste job (you really should be decent enough to reference statute.ie you know)

    As for your comments. I am not an IT professional so will not answer in some regards (a lesson you would do well to remember as you quote laws you have no knowledge or understanding off) however if you used another persons password or accessed an area you had no permission to access then you have commited a crime.

    I am a registered user on this site therefore I am allowed access and post here. If I used an admins password to access the site and read private messages I have commited a crime unless granted that right by said person.

    Permission is a vital factor regardless of how, where and why.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    By ignoring the first part of my post do you admit you are wrong?

    Secondly, I enforce these laws and understand them perfectly. You were the one that was unaware of such laws and I posted from memory not a copy and paste job (you really should be decent enough to reference statute.ie you know)

    As for your comments. I am not an IT professional so will not answer in some regards (a lesson you would do well to remember as you quote laws you have no knowledge or understanding off) however if you used another persons password or accessed an area you had no permission to access then you have commited a crime.

    I am a registered user on this site therefore I am allowed access and post here. If I used an admins password to access the site and read private messages I have commited a crime unless granted that right by said person.

    Permission is a vital factor regardless of how, where and why.

    I'm not ignoring the first part of your post, you asked me to explain how i could make a statment, the questions i listed are to show you why I can make such a claim.

    You posted from memory, and you can't remember what section it was? why would I have it in memory? I'm not a solicitor, and I would expect a good one to be able to remember what section of the law it is.

    If I was unaware of such laws why would I make the personal gain comment? how would i know it was legal or not?

    how can you enforce laws you have no understanding of

    if you don't know if someone makes a TCP connection to port 22 on a machine exposed on a public network is against the law or not how can you enforce it?

    so you can only enforce the law when it involves something you understand?

    what good is that?

    so someone with no understanding enforces these laws? that's very irish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    Where did I say I had no memory of the sections? I stated them clearly, you however are simple taking from another site. You couldn't even post a basic explanation of the laws.

    Also,
    Unlike you I do not speak of areas I have no experience or training in that is why I do not speak of ports, etc. Thats IT and we have an IT department, ever hear of expert witnesses?

    according to you to be a Garda I should have personal knowledge of rape, murder, theft and incest as well should I? Or I am not able to enforce laws against these crimes?

    Because Im not a psychiatrist or doctor I cannot act on or use my powers under the Childrens Act or Mental health Act?

    Be sensible, no person knows everything about everything. I know law (as a Garda not a solicitor BTW), you know computers. I dont pretend to be an expert in your field, you should stop pretending in mine.

    You were wrong in your comment. Thats the bottom line, just accept it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell



    I am a registered user on this site therefore I am allowed access and post here. If I used an admins password to access the site and read private messages I have commited a crime unless granted that right by said person.

    Permission is a vital factor regardless of how, where and why.

    How do you define permission?

    why does it have to be a person?

    can the permission come from software? what if the software wrongly elevated privilege's to grant permission you shouldn't have been given?

    how where and why is never as black and white as you might like to think.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    ntlbell wrote:
    To the OP get in touch with a solicitor, I'm confident enough there's nothing he can do that i'll pay your legal fee's if he can!
    :D:D:D

    How did I miss this the first time round????

    Of course theres nothing he can do about it, a solicitor doesnt investigate or prosecute CRIMINAL offences. Thats the Gardai and DPP.

    Wow your knowledge of Irish law is weak.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Where did I say I had no memory of the sections? I stated them clearly, you however are simple taking from another site. You couldn't even post a basic explanation of the laws.

    Also,
    Unlike you I do not speak of areas I have no experience or training in that is why I do not speak of ports, etc. Thats IT and we have an IT department, ever hear of expert witnesses?

    according to you to be a Garda I should have personal knowledge of rape, murder, theft and incest as well should I? Or I am not able to enforce laws against these crimes?

    Because Im not a psychiatrist or doctor I cannot act on or use my powers under the Childrens Act or Mental health Act?

    Be sensible, no person knows everything about everything. I know law (as a Garda not a solicitor BTW), you know computers. I dont pretend to be an expert in your field, you should stop pretending in mine.

    You were wrong in your comment. Thats the bottom line, just accept it.

    You are commenting on a law that you don't understand, if your "expert witness" posted on this thread we could get this cleared up, but you commenting on it with no understanding of IT is pointless.

    the same way if you were commenting on an issue which was to do with mental health i'd expect you to understand the under liying issue, or have your "expert witness" post instead.

    the fact you have a "team" to get an understanding of these things doesn't mean you have an understanding of what's been discussed in _this_ thread.

    so you're admitting you don't understand IT so you can't understand how it fits within the law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    :D:D:D

    How did I miss this the first time round????

    Of course theres nothing he can do about it, a solicitor doesnt investigate or prosecute CRIMINAL offences. Thats the Gardai and DPP.

    Wow your knowledge of Irish law is weak.

    The point I was making is that i'm so sure nothing will come of it, that i'll pay any legal fee's in making the attempt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    ntlbell wrote:
    How do you define permission?

    why does it have to be a person?

    can the permission come from software? what if the software wrongly elevated privilege's to grant permission you shouldn't have been given?

    how where and why is never as black and white as you might like to think.

    Your questions are a weak attempt to change the argument and avoid admitting your wrong. I will answer however as it is simple to do so.

    A, A machine cannot be guilty of an offence therefore it must be a human. Should we charge dogs with murder? DPP V Lassie????? DPP V John Smyths PC; "I swear judge I didnt do it, it was the PC, number 5 is alive!"

    B, The law allows for accidents. It is an adequate defence if you reasonable believed you had the permission of the owner or would have had the permission had you been able to request it. See the Criminal justice (theft and fraud offences) Act 2001. Section 5 for more examples.

    C, same as A, machines cannot commit crime. Only humans can. Again as per A, if you used the increased allowances despite knowing it was an error you have commited a crime.

    D, Permission is defined under the various acts depending on what act you intend to prosecute under however its basically consent or an allowance to act/not act, etc. What a pointless question, get a dictionary.

    All under Theft Act 2001. Criminal damage Act has seperate allowances (theres even an offence of destroying your own property)

    Pretty black and white in my opinion. In fact law is always black and white as it written down in statutes and case law. If theres a grey area the high court makes a decision and it becomes 'case law stated'; which then amends or decides for all future cases.

    For example, Marsh V DPP made a case law stated that Gardai cannot be the victims under Section 4 ofthe public order Act 1994. There is no further debate on this, it has been decided for all future cases.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Your questions are a weak attempt to change the argument and avoid admitting your wrong. I will answer however as it is simple to do so.

    A, A machine cannot be guilty of an offence therefore it must be a human. Should we charge dogs with murder? DPP V Lassie????? DPP V John Smyths PC; "I swear judge I didnt do it, it was the PC, number 5 is alive!"

    B, The law allows for accidents. It is an adequate defence if you reasonable believed you had the permission of the owner or would have had the permission had you been able to request it. See the Criminal justice (theft and fraud offences) Act 2001. Section 5 for more examples.

    C, same as A, machines cannot commit crime. Only humans can. Again as per A, if you used the increased allowances despite knowing it was an error you have commited a crime.

    D, Permission is defined under the various acts depending on what act you intend to prosecute under however its basically consent or an allowance to act/not act, etc. What a pointless question, get a dictionary.

    All under Theft Act 2001. Criminal damage Act has seperate allowances (theres even an offence of destroying your own property)

    Pretty black and white in my opinion. In fact law is always black and white as it written down in statutes and case law. If theres a grey area the high court makes a decision and it becomes 'case law stated'; which then amends or decides for all future cases.

    For example, Marsh V DPP made a case law stated that Gardai cannot be the victims under Section 4 ofthe public order Act 1994. There is no further debate on this, it has been decided for all future cases.

    I have the information to backup my statments, you haven't been able to answer any of my questions or prove any of my statments wrong you stating they're wrong is not enough

    So if a human chooses to allow software to grant permissions, everyone who access the data based on the interaction with the software must be comitting a crime as they have not been granted permission by a human.

    yes it's all black and white.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    since u keep complaining that the other posters have no clue :
    connecting on port 22 is an open available public service (ssh), only after authenticating with stolen details and accessig privlidged information would be the correct inalagy.

    as for port scanning, that information is all public, doesn't seem to fit into this conversation at all and is just you trying to through in technical terms to make up for your lack of understanding of all the relevent laws....
    you login to the machine, do nothing, log off have you accessed data?
    well as you well no doubt know that would depend on the persons setup, if they infact display anything mail/msgs upon login or even a directory listing that would class as accessing data.. where the law stands on that i'm not sure but i think your approach here of trying to rule out people who know their legalese is pretty lame....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    since u keep complaining that the other posters have no clue :
    connecting on port 22 is an open available public service (ssh), only after authenticating with stolen details and accessig privlidged information would be the correct inalagy.

    as for port scanning, that information is all public, doesn't seem to fit into this conversation at all and is just you trying to through in technical terms to make up for your lack of understanding of all the relevent laws....


    well as you well no doubt know that would depend on the persons setup, if they infact display anything mail/msgs upon login or even a directory listing that would class as accessing data.. where the law stands on that i'm not sure but i think your approach here of trying to rule out people who know their legalese is pretty lame....

    it would class as accessing data , but what if they don't display it?? where the law stands is not clear, and that's what the point was proving. I'm not trying to prove he doesn't understand the law but the crimes, the law is not very complicated, the crimes often are and do not fit into the law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    ntlbell wrote:
    I have the information to backup my statments, you haven't been able to answer any of my questions or prove any of my statments wrong you stating they're wrong is not enough

    I have answered everything. I even did it with a nice easy to read A,B,C and D. I quoted the exact laws and sections. What do you want? look up statute.ie yourself, I know you can.
    ntlbell wrote:
    So if a human chooses to allow software to grant permissions, everyone who access the data based on the interaction with the software must be comitting a crime as they have not been granted permission by a human.

    what a load of **** and you know it. If the program grants wrong access then you have no permission and therefore by using that permission despite being aware you should not have it you have commited a crime.

    If you logged onto a PC and it makes a mistake and sends you into a private area then you were unaware and had no intent or option. You in effect had neither mens rea (guilty mind, intent) nor actus reus (guilty act) which are required for criminal acts.

    The machine can only act based on human input. My PC cannot turn itself on, go to Amazon and use my credit card to buy a nice fur coat. It requires a human hand to make it do so.

    The key here is intent. If you hack into a machine you have commited a crime regardless of what you gain.

    If you hack a machine and also take and use credit card details you have commited more crimes.

    If I use my sisters credit card online because she said I could then I have commited no crime. If I look into her email on her request or after asking could I then I have commited no crime.

    All black and white. outline the scenario and I will answer legal or illegal but as the above user posinted out. I am using standard terms and language and I explain the 'legal' terms when needed. You are hiding behind pointless questions and IT jargon.

    Bottom line, you stated that hacking is legal provided you obtain no information, that was wrong. you were wrong and therefore I and others are correct in stating so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    ntlbell wrote:
    it would class as accessing data , but what if they don't display it?? where the law stands is not clear, and that's what the point was proving.

    Excuse me? I believe it was already pointed out to you by another user in plain English.

    You said it was legal and were proven wrong. Simple


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    What is there some saying about the law being blind, anyway sure if he accessed the data the onus of proof would be on him that he didn't view it, or store/distribute it in any way. Once its proved he's accessed the data surely its his problem from then on?

    As for the OP's post, logging into the secure part of a website, you could easily prove the page was view'd/downloaded from apache's logs of all the pictures that would have been pulled to go with the page, claiming he didn't view em wouldn't be much use really, he willfully accessed a protected part of the site , if he closed his browser after having a peak or a proper root around i don't see the difference....


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    No, its 'Justice is blind' as in she doesnt see race, colour, etc etc etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell



    Bottom line, you stated that hacking is legal provided you obtain no information, that was wrong. you were wrong and therefore I and others are correct in stating so.

    I'm not going to get into this for much longer because I thought I was discussing this with a solicitor, and I would really like to have this conversation on boards with a clued in solicitor and not a templemore school boy.

    I never stated hacking was legal, my job is to prevent it, so I wouldn't come on to boards encouraging it, I have met with your cyber crime team many times around the country at many seminar's and I've never been impressed.

    The bottom line is the law is flawed, you're understanding of what is and isn't a crime and how the law relates to it is flawed and only someone who doesn't work in IT or IT security would argue that it isn't.

    I'm wrong you're right keep up the good work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Excuse me? I believe it was already pointed out to you by another user in plain English.

    You said it was legal and were proven wrong. Simple

    This was a reply to if mail/msg's dir was listed on login, your getting lost now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell



    As for the OP's post, logging into the secure part of a website, you could easily prove the page was view'd/downloaded from apache's logs of all the pictures that would have been pulled to go with the page, claiming he didn't view em wouldn't be much use really, he willfully accessed a protected part of the site , if he closed his browser after having a peak or a proper root around i don't see the difference....

    No it's not easy to prove as apache logs CANNOT be used as admissable eveidence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    ntlbell wrote:
    I'm not going to get into this for much longer because I thought I was discussing this with a solicitor, and I would really like to have this conversation on boards with a clued in solicitor and not a templemore school boy.

    ha ha ha, this coming from someone with NO legal training or experience. Are you even aware that all Gardai get a degree in criminal law which is considered equal to the criminal law training for solicitors (some would say better but thats another debate), well????

    Are you aware that its Gardai that prosecute the majority of criminal law cases in Ireland, well????

    Or that we have fully qualified IT personell????

    What makes you queen IT girl???

    And you clearly did imply that hacking without using or taking information is legal.

    Save your fingers, people can read the posts and realise your beaten. And not 1 person has agreed with you so far.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    ha ha ha, this coming from someone with NO legal training or experience. Are you even aware that all Gardai get a degree in criminal law which is considered equal to the criminal law training for solicitors (some would say better but thats another debate), well????

    Are you aware that its Gardai that prosecute the majority of criminal law cases in Ireland, well????

    Or that we have fully qualified IT personell????

    What makes you queen IT girl???

    And you clearly did imply that hacking without using or taking information is legal.

    Save your fingers, people can read the posts and realise your beaten. And not 1 person has agreed with you so far.

    You have IT personell, what they're qualified to do bar drinking coffee and reading cartoons I'm not sure.

    We're both using the term hacking in the wrong way, and I should know better, hacking is legal...very much so, I can fire up my home network and hack to my hearts content for personal enjoyment and break no laws.

    This was not about winning or loosing, it's a discussion, when you put the ego to one side, you could learn something from the thread, as I have.

    I don't belive we've had anyone from the IT security industry to agree or disagree or any solicitor's but it would be alot more intresting if we got both.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    Original question:
    dublindude wrote:
    Rival website is logging into private areas of the website to snoop my design etc. For example, this would be similar to me logging in under another users account on boards.ie to read their private messages

    Your reply:
    ntlbell wrote:
    as long as no information is changed or destroyed, or used for personal gain it's not illegal. proving they used the information for personal gain is a tough one. all logs can not be used as admissible eveidence.

    Liama then pointed out you were wrong by posting:
    liamo wrote:
    The two main offences regarding hacking in Ireland are found in the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The ‘basic hacking offence' within Section 5 prohibits the accessing of another person's data, via a computer, without that said person's consent.

    The fact that you cannot accept you are wrong (and therefore giving bad advise is compounded by the fact you go on to advise him that he should get a solicitor. To do what? Sue for what is a criminal act????? This shows your complete lack of legal knowledge and the fact you will hand out bad advice.

    I could go all day but I , Liama, Duffman and Nietzschean have all posted showing your talking crap.

    In fact Nietzschean even felt the need to jump in with this comments:
    is just you trying to through in technical terms to make up for your lack of understanding of all the relevent laws
    i think your approach here of trying to rule out people who know their legalese is pretty lame

    So while its been fun and your trying to walk away despite insulting myself, my colleagues (I hope you never genuinely need us) and making yourself out too be nothing but an arrogant fool the original poster has recieved proper and correct advise and will be aware that you are talking through your ass so the purpose of this thread has been well served.

    Oh and by commenting
    ntlbell wrote:
    hacking is legal...very much so, I can fire up my home network and hack to my hearts content for personal enjoyment and break no laws.
    you show your complete ignorance as I already stated that permission by the owner is paramount as is the mens rea and actus reus. How can you steal your own property or information and have intent to steal from yourself? Your comment makes no sense, why doesnt that surprise me?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    You sure you're not a politician?

    I didn't advise him to see a solicitor so he could SUE.

    I have requried the services of the guards to deal with incidents of cyber crime, and my education in the law of cyber crime is mostly down to talking with members of that team, young clueless idiots who openly admit to be not very up on IT but are _trying_ and depend on people like me with expirience like mine to help them.

    anyway, it's nearing paddys day, shouldn't you be busy putting a shine on your riot gear? :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    ntlbell wrote:
    I didn't advise him to see a solicitor so he could SUE.

    Then why did you? What else could a private solicitor do? Anyone with even a basic grasp of Irish law would suggest he contact the police not a solicitor if he wanted to press charges. Keep going, your knowledge is how good?:p
    ntlbell wrote:
    I have requried the services of the guards to deal with incidents of cyber crime, and my education in the law of cyber crime is mostly down to talking with members of that team, young clueless idiots who openly admit to be not very up on IT but are _trying_ and depend on people like me with expirience like mine to help them.
    Oh I see, here I was thinking that you need 2 years in Templemore followed by at least 2 years uniform work prior to applying to be a detective. Thanks for explaining that, you can go straight in to be a detective, no training or experience. No, on second thoughts I think you just dont have a clue what your talking about. (BTW, I already told you we have our own IT people, I never said they were even Gardai so why would we need you?)
    ntlbell wrote:
    anyway, it's nearing paddys day, shouldn't you be busy putting a shine on your riot gear? :p
    Again, I hope you never need us and can always laugh and mock the people that risk their lives for you and this nation. Many people cannot for various reasons. But I personaly hope that Paddies day is sunny and filled with family fun. Are you planning on causing trouble?

    Still, mock and laugh away. Its a terrible thing to have such an inferiority complex.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Then why did you? What else could a private solicitor do? Anyone with even a basic grasp of Irish law would suggest he contact the police not a solicitor if he wanted to press charges. Keep going, your knowledge is how good?:p


    Because a simple chat with a solicitor is all it needs to know there's no point in taking it any further.

    or he could go to the guards and be passed from one idiot to an other and listen to "uh emm uh eh HACKERS????"


    No, on second thoughts I think you just dont have a clue what your talking about. (BTW, I already told you we have our own IT people, I never said they were even Gardai so why would we need you?)

    So the guarda don't call in outside security consultants to work on certain cases? Riiiight.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭smeggle


    What I fail to see is what all the arguing is about? :confused:

    Maybe if you try reading what the OP wrote before arguing?
    Quote OP's post;
    I own a website. Rival website is logging into private areas of the website to snoop my design etc.

    The specific word there is 'Private'. Simply put if they are getting into there without the owners permission means they are 'Hacking' or 'Breaking and Entering'. (The anology of breaking and entering into a house then holds 'Philosophically' in the sence that the burglar is breaking into a 'Private' area). Just because a server has public access does not mean that all areas are 'Allowed' to be accessed. If I found anyone in certain specific areas of my server/s without my permission other than the permission I have given,

    Then 1. I would want to know why and 2. If you don't have a good enough reason, (which the offender obviously wouldn't) then I will do my utmost to have them face charges.

    The law covering that has been quoted.

    The OP should therefore contact his local Gardia Computer Crimes section, provide all relevant information and let them deal with it. Quite simple really.



    :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭liamo


    smeggle wrote:
    What I fail to see is what all the arguing is about?
    Differences of opinion that got out of hand.
    smeggle wrote:
    Maybe if you try reading what the OP wrote before arguing?
    Everyone read it. The arguing was an unexpected and diverting spectator event :)

    Following these detailed (*cough* *cough*) discussions, I'd be interested to know what the intentions of the Original Poster are. DublinDude, care to comment?

    Regards,

    Liam


Advertisement