Hmmm. Calling a scanning program an "illegal access device" seems like quite
a stretch to me, especially if the original statute was referring to physical
access. If that's all they had to hold someone on, I doubt it would even make
it to trial. Of course, given the right judge, I suppose anything is
possible.
Your point is taken. :-)
-Kent
Ryan Russell wrote:
> >But again, they were arrested because they broke a specific law, ie. the
> >possession of certain tools. This does not refute the point that if a
> >specific law has not been broken, the issue of intent is irrelevant.
>
> The "specific law" in BernieS' case was "possesion of an illegal
> access device". This horribly vague law has been used to
> arrest many a hacker. Then, during the trial, the prosecution argues
> intent to make it stick.
>
> >If it _were_ against the law to perform a port scan, it would not matter
> >whether the intent was to check for vulnerabilities for an actual break in
> >or if it were just someone playing with a new scanning tool. It's the
> >same as someone stealing a car to sell it and someone stealing a car to
> >joyride. Both are covered by existing statutes, but the question of
> >intent may make the penalties worse for one.
>
> It's always possible that some SS agent will decide that your copy
> of NMAP constitutes an illegal access device, and arrest you for
> it. They could do this without you even using it. If they get to court
> with it, and you had actually USED it, well then the Prosecution's
> "intent" case is pretty easy to prove, no?
>
> Ryan
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
