>This is, IMHO, irrelevant. If an action is not illegal, you cannot be
>prosecuted for it. Period. I don't see how it can be relevant what
>your intentions were. If I stand on the street and examine your house
>looking for ways to break in, it's not illegal. It's simply not
>relevant what I intend to do, only what I have actually done, provided
>the action is not illegal. If I do commit an illegal act, intentions
>may play a roll in the severity of the charges, but again this is
>irrelevant if no charges can be brought.
Not true. There are a whole bunch of laws relating to "intent" that
you can be prosecuted under. Look at all the "burglar tools" type
statutes. BernieS got thrown in prison for having a red box,
not for using it.
Ryan
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Derek Martin
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Magowan, Richard M. (ITS)
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Derek Martin
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Kent Hundley
- Re: Response to hack attempt? P L STEINBRUCH
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Dave Gillett
- Re: Response to hack attempt? P L STEINBRUCH
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Dave Gillett
- Re: Response to hack attem... P L STEINBRUCH
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Larry Chin
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Ryan Russell
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Kent Hundley
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Ryan Russell
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Ryan Russell
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Kent Hundley
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Frank Knobbe
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Lars Kronf�lt
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Bill Stackpole
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Frank Knobbe
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Derek Martin
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Dave Gillett
