"Lee, Dana-Renee" wrote:
>
> In a court case some years ago, the federal government prosecuted a hacker
> when they broke into a government computer. The case was through out because
> the government agency did not post a banner page advising that it was a
> government restricted use computer. The court said the banner said welcome
> instead of warning do not enter. If you do not put in methods to restrict
> access (ACL's, Firewall, Etc.) then any prosecutor would be on shaky ground
> do to the president set by this prior case in federal court making attempted
> penetration of a system not prosecutable in most courts. The moral to this
> story is, Prosecution probably will not be brought by government unless
> someone penetrates a system where the system was plainly posted as "Off
> Limits Do Not Enter".
(I got into one big argument about 10 years ago on the subject of
precedents. A co-worker asserted that a municipal court verdict
in a photo radar case in Pasadena, California effectively outlawed
photo radar in California by setting a precedent that every municipal
court, including itself, in California must follow. He was, of
course, very wrong.)
Since it was a federal court, I assume that the law that was broken
(or alleged broken) was federal law and not a state law. If so,
the precedent set by the court referred to that federal law and not on
any state law.
Also, you can have two different courts set precedents quite differently.
The precedent only applies to lower courts directly under that court.
It is not uncommon that one appeals court interprets the law in a
different matter than another appeals court.
But in this case, the law is a state law and those precedents will
not necessarily apply unless it is that state law (or a similar law
from another state) being appealed into the federal system. It is
something to consider, though.
You can even have a court decide two cases differently based on
different interpretations of the same law. A precedent is not
binding on the court (local, state, or federal) that set the precedent.
For example, the supreme court can set a precedent that all lower
courts must follow, but twenty years later can completely reverse
itself in deciding another case and set a new precedent.
Also, some courts cannot set any precedent whatsoever. It is my
understanding that no justice of the court or municipal court may
set a precedent at all.
The big question is whether a prosecutor, considering the action taken
by another court, thinks it is worth trying the case in hopes that the
court in his district will decide it differently (assuming his court
is not under the court setting the precedent).
It would, of course, be prudent to provide notices telling people what is
and what is not permitted. But where do we post them? It doesn't appear
obvious that a web page would be considered a legal place to post such
notices without either a law to that effect or for the practice to be so
widespread that the courts acknowledge it.
Eric Johnson
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
