I'm a bit surprised that after the furor here on NANOG when the story
first broke (in 2008) that there's been no discussion about the recent
outcome of his trial (convicted, one count of felony network tampering).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/27/BA4V1D5Q22.D
TLtsp=1
On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Olsen, Jason wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that after the furor here on NANOG when the story
first broke (in 2008) that there's been no discussion about the recent
outcome of his trial (convicted, one count of felony network tampering).
===
I'm not surprised. It has
1:11:07 PM
Subject: Terry Childs conviction
I'm a bit surprised that after the furor here on NANOG when the story
first broke (in 2008) that there's been no discussion about the recent
outcome of his trial (convicted, one count of felony network tampering).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 15:11 -0500, Olsen, Jason wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that after the furor here on NANOG when the story
first broke (in 2008) that there's been no discussion about the recent
outcome of his trial (convicted, one count of felony network tampering).
Surely even at DeVry they
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:47:02 CDT, William Pitcock said:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 15:11 -0500, Olsen, Jason wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that after the furor here on NANOG when the story
first broke (in 2008) that there's been no discussion about the recent
outcome of his trial (convicted, one
Henry Linneweh wrote:
Anytime you mess with a government entity, without legal guidance, you are at
great risk. Mr.Childs took a risk and jury decided he was wrong. He faces
5 years in prison.
Unlikely.
From the article:
However, Judge Teri Jackson is expected to impose a sentence under
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So if you want to make an analogy, it's more like taking the keys away from
a drunk so they can't drive. Good luck finding a DA who will indict you for
grand theft auto for taking the keys to prevent a DWI.
According to news
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:47 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Surely even at DeVry they teach that if you refuse to hand over
passwords for property that is not legally yours, that you are
committing a crime. I mean, think about it, it's effectively theft, in
the same sense that if you refuse to
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:48 -0400, David Krider wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:47 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Surely even at DeVry they teach that if you refuse to hand over
passwords for property that is not legally yours, that you are
committing a crime. I mean, think about it, it's
Illegal control = Conversion = at least a tort, but could also be a crime.
On Apr 29, 2010, at 10:05 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:48 -0400, David Krider wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:47 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Surely even at DeVry they teach that if you refuse
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, William Pitcock wrote:
Same difference, he still committed a crime and anyone who is defending
him seems to not understand this. Whatever we want to call that crime,
it's still a crime, and he got the appropriate penalty.
Hi William. I have to agree that it does seem he
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:23 -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/29/2010 21:05, William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:48 -0400, David Krider wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:47 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Surely even at DeVry they teach that if you refuse to hand over
passwords for
12 matches
Mail list logo
