On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Paul B. Brown wrote:
> 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
Why not? Going 1MPH over the speed limit doesn't harm or profit anyone,
but is still against the law.
There's a possibility that knowing what ports are open does profit the
actor if they're looking for a specific vulnerability.
> say clueless lawmakers? How can there be penalty if no harm is done,
Pretty easily. Copyright law can be like this also.
> 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.
The law isn't made to address port scanning, it's made to address access,
unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which way you lean) it does
so in too broad a way. Like the Oregon statute that Randall Schwartz was
pers^Wprosecuted under where in court both he and Intel (the "victim") held
that he hadn't intended any harm or malice.
> How does one determine $ loss? This can be arbitrary. I think there are
One documents the time and efforts spent on whatever one attributes to
the event.
> 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.
Which part of the constitution were you thinking of? There are a lot of
stupid laws which appear to be constitutional.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
