On 21 Jul 99, at 19:32, Frank Knobbe wrote: > This may sound bold but I think we *need* the hackers. Let the purps > commit crime. We will deal with them, and over time, once we > standardize the law, we will archive a higher conviction rate and > higher deterrence/prevention of cyber crime. This was the case with > drugs, theft, witchcraft, you name it. While I like your argument, I'm not impressed by your choice of examples. The "War on Drugs" shows no more indication of successful "deterrence/prevention" than Prohibition did, and the "witchcraft" I'm familiar with is a right protected under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion) and not a crime at all. David G - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
- 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
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Bryan Andersen
- Re: Response to hack attempt? peter pajak
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Derek Martin
- Re: Response to hack attempt? D Clyde Williamson
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Michael F. Dick
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Zigblock
- Re: Response to hack attempt? Dave Gillett
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Randall, Mark
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Frank Knobbe
- RE: Response to hack attempt? Derek Martin
