RE: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread Rick Smith
I don't even know where to start. I understand the malicious part - employee gone bad, fine. Punish him. But 2 years ? and 3 yrs after ? This is unlicensed stuff, can we really claim business interruption !? I would've hoped I had a defense attorney that could say Hey, they have to accept

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread Mike Ireton
The really interesting part of this: The attack cut off service for one woman who was waiting for an e-mail notifying her about the availability of an organ transplant that she required, according to prosecutors. Because of her critical status, her provider gave her priority status and

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread fred
Why in the world, I want to know, are organ availability notifications going out via email???!!! Seriously. How fun will it be when they start serving subpeonas and such that way - What I never got that email?? ~fred On 12/16/06, Mike Ireton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The really interesting

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread David E. Smith
George Rogato wrote: According to the government, Fisher admitted he used an administrative password to break into SBT's network on Feb. 28, 2005. Once in the network, he plant malicious code that directed the radio tower computer to cut off Wi-Fi service to the company's users. Remember,

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread David E. Smith
fred wrote: Why in the world, I want to know, are organ availability notifications going out via email???!!! Seriously. How fun will it be when they start serving subpeonas and such that way - What I never got that email?? I don't think subpoenas will get there for a while (if ever), because

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread John Scrivner
This has more to do with malicious behavior than whether unlicensed has protections. I have argued with others over the years that if you intentionally do harm then you are liable even if that intentional behavior to cause harm is with unlicensed frequencies. Looks like that hypothesis holds

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread fred
Just as clarification, I am not at all giving pass to this guy's actions or anyone who intentionally or knowingly disrupts any service of any kind. I certainly hope though that I'm not going to be held liable if someone comes suing me because literally their life depending on the delivery of an

RE: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

2006-12-16 Thread Rick Smith
. THAT claim, I believe, is reprehensible. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Ireton Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:19 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far... The really interesting part