On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > Ask Randall Schwartz how that worked out for him. "intent" doesn't > enter into it as much as a defendant may like.
intel has a long history of strong arming legal strong-arming against those who provoke the beast's wrath. it doesn't help that ORS 164.377 is overly broad for selective prosecution; factor in the InfraGard partnership direct-line with technical and economic clout and you've got influence over legal levers too large and plentiful to resist beating convenient targets with. so perhaps this example is not most representative of the typical and certainly not to title 18. as for agro intel some early indicators are they have improved on this posture. i hope they keep it up. by the way Intel Corp., i'm still waiting on that apology for the internal smearing in the company newsletter to pimp centrino security and fear monger wifi back in the day. if you're truly sorry you could cover the cost of compromised equipment from the black bag you sabre rattled for. :/ call me! [ not holding my breath... ] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
