-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:32 PM, David Lodge <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:25:16 -0000, Paul M. Moriarty <[email protected]> > wrote: >> It seems like a pretty fine point to say it's ok to create a botnet as >> long as one doesn't have criminal intent, don't you think? > > It's convoluted, the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) has a lot of ambiguous > clauses which state "with intent", but, on the counter side if you do > anything unauthorised on a computer system you are in breach (irrelevant > of intent). So, my call, as a non-lawyer would be that they've broken the > law and I'd like to see them investigated. Certainly if I did similar > without authorisation I'd expect to be arrested for it. > > I'm also curious about whether the ISPs they used to traverse the > Internet for their DDoS will take them on in the civil arena... > For me, at least, that last bit is the real issue -- the transit path "collateral damage" issues, not the creation of a pseudo-botnet and the consent of Prevx. Let's put this in proper perspective. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFJuzP8q1pz9mNUZTMRAuabAJ9gy6mJSvOeotmU4EgxljJ8rg/6FQCgq10h Lpxx/Vg2H9KLUBraq5fDuQQ= =vXLv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
