Eric,
>> I think the issue here is not the definition of access, but the
>> phrase, "without the effective consent of the owner.". If you are
>> connected to the Internet, then you "effectively", give consent to be
>> "accessed" for lawful purposes. Now the issue become "lawful
>> purposes". By what I've read in the Texas penal code, as it pertains
>> to port scanning, only a denial of service would be considered
>> unlawful.
>
> Except that the law does not require that you suffer any harm for it
> to be a Class B misdemeanor. As I read it, the harm comes into
> effect to determine the level of the violation, not the fact that a
> violation occurred.
>
> In fact, look at Sec 33.02(b):
> An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor
> unless in committing the offense the actor knowingly obtains a
> benefit, defrauds or harms another, or alters, damages, or
> deletes property, in which event the offense is:
>
> Thus, the access itself is a Class B misdemeanor even if there is
> no harm done. If there is harm done, then it might be a Class A
> misdemeanor, a state jail felony, a felony of the third degree,
> a felony of the second degree, or a felony of the first degree.
Are you saying that if it does not harm or even profit the actor in any
way other than simple knowledge that it's a Class B Misdemeanor? Can you
say clueless lawmakers? How can there be penalty if no harm is done,
services rendered in accessible or even slowed, no knowledge is gained
other than what ports are open, etc? I don't understand the intent of
this law.
>> Port scans do not alter or destroy data so that's not an issue. If
>> your port scan caused someone to not access something that they
>> should be able to, this would be a class B misdemeanor.
>
> If the port scan was done as part of a denial of service attack,
> it could easily be much worse depending on damages. If the damages
> amounted to $200,000 or more, it would be a felony of the first
> degree.
How does one determine $ loss? This can be arbitrary. I think there are
some lawmakers that need to think again about this law and it's intended
application otherwise they might find someone can have it struck down as
unconstitutional.
What do you think of this law?
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
President
Brown Technologies Network, Inc. http://www.btechnet.com/
Systems and Applications Design, Development, Deployment, and Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
