On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:21:30AM -0400, Derek D. Martin wrote: > > > I am not saying the ill-conceived, reactionary measures under > > discussion in Congress are justified. I believe they are not. But > > the fact of the matter is, comparing a network security compromise > > to a kid throwing a brick through a window is just not reasonable, > > either. > > Well, I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. I believe > that most "intrusions" are little more serious than that, though > certainly some are. Again, especially remembering that DoJ and/or the > courts include such things as nmap scans in their definition of > intrusions...
To clarify and summarize, an act is either terrorism or it isn't; the mere involvement of a computer makes it no more and no less terrorism that it would be if the same or similar act were carried out without the use of a computer. We do not need a new definition of terrorism. We only need to redefine how we respond to terrorism. -- --------------------------------------------------- Derek Martin | Unix/Linux geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu ********************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter: unsubscribe gnhlug **********************************************************
