What a marvelous state Idaho is !
By the way , is it legal to shoot people that turn doorknobs there ?
TIA
PL Steinbruch
PS. 1) This subject was stressed in the past - no conclusions at all , or ,
if you prefer , the conclusion was it depends on the geographic region and
ultimately , local law.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miss Yvette Seifert Hirth, CCP, CDP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Firewall Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 1:09 PM
Subject: Doorknob turns and port scans
> Norman Bottom wrote:
>
> >>Ron DuFresne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>. . . . If someone walks up to yer home, raps on the door, and even
> twists the knob,
> >>though enters not, has a crime been committed? What if they walk about
> the house and >>check em all, including the garage attached or not to the
> house? Has a crime really >>been committed?
> >COULD BE -TRESPASS AND ATTEMPTED BURGLARY
>
> It's not trespass unless you can prove criminal intent, or you have a sign
> up that says "No Solicitors", or you are a member of a militia that lives
in
> Hayden Lake, ID, where everyone has a fully automatic weapon and they
don't
> like anybody else (which, in all probability, includes you). Attempted
> burglary? From turning a doorknob? I'm afraid to ask, but - under what
> legal system are you bound?
>
> >>. . . . Now, if I sit across the street, or in front of your house and
> stare in your >>windows, watch your comings and goings and the comings and
> goings of all your family >>and friends have I committed a crime?
> >COULD BE - LOITERING WITH CRIMINAL INTENT; HARASSING; STALKING
>
> I hardly think sitting in a parked car constitutes "loitering with
criminal
> intent". If you're thinking of staring in someone's window all day,
chances
> are a Cop will come by and ask you to leave before you get too far. It's
> not harassment unless you can prove someone harassed you. It's not
stalking
> unless someone follows you.
>
> Thank heavens for "innocent until proven guilty".
>
> Now as for port scanning, while I am clearly a neophyte from the technical
> side of things, I have had my share of legal battles, and unless someone
can
> prove malicious intent, while I am not an attorney, I cannot imagine a
> State's Attorney going after a firm for having some internet user (which
may
> be a bot) that had the firm's address in it's packets (which may have been
> spoofed) simply checking their ports to see which ones responded. I am
not
> arguing as to whether it was or wasn't against "the law". There doesn't
> seem to be any prima facie evidence implicating any people or
> corporation(s). Any good lawyer for the defense will argue that that the
> "logs" were simply keyed in by the plaintiff and thus are "hearsay". If
you
> have a datascope recording packets whizzing by, *maybe*. Otherwise - end
of
> complaint.
>
> Litigation? <ears perking up> Did I hear litigation? Let's assume you'd
> get past a Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent Summary Judgement pleas.
> Now you're in a big-money situation (in all probability a minimum of
$100k)
> to argue that "they" (whoever they are) "Did Not Have The Right To Do
That"
> (tm). And maybe "they" didn't. So, the question that begs asking is,
"What
> are your damages?" When the Judge asks that, what do you say? That they
> turned my doorknob? That they looked in my window? That they hurt my
> feelings? That they consumed 0.0000003 sec of router cpu time? That they
> sucked up 1ms of DS0 / T1 / T3 line time?
>
> I am certain we are being scanned, in all probability from hackers,
> Pro-Lifers, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, The Knights of
> Malta, conservative groups opposed to diversity and other assorted
nutcases
> / phreaks. So what? Our defense mechanism tells 'em "None of your biz".
> If I base our response on the concept of Individual Responsibility, then
it
> seems to me that it's up to us to ensure that we don't have a Trojan
> somewhere inhouse that replies "use port xxxx and waste us". If we get
> wasted, I can blame others, call the gov, litigate, ad nauseum, but at the
> end of the day, *I have let it happen*. The buck stops here.
>
> While I am not pleased that people are scanning us, I try to remember that
> humans are, in one case, like CPUs: we only have so much "processor
power"
> to go around. I prefer to save our "let's git the bastids" energy for the
> time when someone does something *really bad*, like tries to exploit a
hole
> that a Trojan may have found. Then there will be, in all probability,
> damages. Then we would have a case. Hopefully, that day will never come.
>
> Looking at it from that point of view, I'd rather spend the money - maybe
> even serious change - beefing up, reworking, double- and triple-layering
our
> defense mechanism, than very large sums chasing people who will, in all
> probability, never be caught. What was that bromide? "An ounce of
> prevention ...?"
>
> Cheers,
> Yvette
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Miss Yvette Seifert Hirth, CCP, CDP Voice: (847) 263 6800
> The DBT Group, Inc. Fax: (847) 263 6801
> 176 Ambrogio Drive Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gurnee, IL 60031 WWW: http://www.dbtgroup.com
>
> New World Dictionary entry:
> "Fundamental Christianity" - the idea that there is an all-knowing,
> all-seeing, all-powerful, universe-spanning entity that for some
> yet-to-be-explained reason is interested in my sex life.
>
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
