On Mon, 22 May 2000, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I would assume it means, "DO NOT contact the suspected perpetrator,"
> > because in criminal
> > type cases, the suspect can start deleting files and/or destroying
> > equipment when they
> > find out someone is on to them.
>
> Ah, but that's part of the point. If it's a remote attack, how do you
> know who the suspected perp. is? Do we *really* need to make everything
> into a criminal case? If not, then shouldn't there be some bounding of
> what a government agency puts out? If the party line is to never notify
> anyone other than law enforcement, then *I* think the community as a whole
> loses something. Your Paranoia May Vary.
Is not part of the problem here that the toys we deal with are now being
perhaps considered too potentially dangerous to others so that kids,
childern, and the clueless should be protected from them so that they have
less chance of hurting themselves and others out here on the internet?
Is the next step a waiting training week before an ISP account is
established? To the point perhaps that the machines and chips and
technoloogies in question are 'safetied' like a 'smartgun' so as to
prevent someone shooting themself in the foot and or antoher up the block
at the same time?
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
