tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post3439926302210899042..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Private StingersSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-90039147145267577162009-04-29T19:10:00.000-04:002009-04-29T19:10:00.000-04:00It seems to me that this case would have some bear...It seems to me that this case would have some bearing on whether the use of honeypots was considered entrapment. I've always believed that they were not, though many believe they are.<br /><BR>The use of honeypots seems to fit the explanations in the Morris case about predisposition to commit a crime vs. inducing someone to commit a crime. I can't see how running a honeypot to monitor activity would induce someone to break into it. The intruder (usually) would be looking for systems to intentionally infiltrate.<br /><BR>In other cases however, the person infiltrating a honeypot or legitimate server might have been tricked into doing it via a cross site scripting or other exploit. In this case the actual person attacking the honeypot may have been tricked into the action, not by the honeypot owner, but by a third party intent on doing wrong.<br /><BR>In either case I don't see the honeypot as being entrapment, especially after reading this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com