On May 24, 2006 05:12 am, Craig Wright wrote:
Ian,
Cases where you can detain a person who is there are not analogous to
remotely attacking a server.
But I'm not talking about "remotely" attacking a server. I'm talking about
anything on MY network, and that is using IP addresses I've asssigned as far
as the public IP's that I have control over, or the private IP's that I have
control over.
Next, the rights of LE are not those of the general public.
Have no clue what you mean. What is LE?
AS well, the "general public" have no righs. Invidividuals have rights.
In case where there is a system on your network you do not have the
relivant rights in possession. You may be lucky and not be charged. This
happens. Often LE will turn a blind eye for the "greater good". This does
not make the action warranted.
There is no such thing as "greater good."
What action are you referring to, with regard to being "warranted?' Any
action I do, that is justified under law, which includes, using as much as
necesarry, is completely warranted.
"then doing whatever is necessary to stop the trespass from continuing."
block access. On a network when you already know of the attack this is not
as difficult as many of the analogies that fly about.
Don't have clue to what you mean, in regard to what I've stated In your
world, "blocking access" could also be a "trespass," no?
In my world, that might be one of the first things I'd do. My activity
however, might also increase to where I could discover what exactly is going
on, and I might take whatever actions I wish, on MY network, against ANY
device, on MY network.
What happens if you attack the wrong system?
The owner complains to me. If he don't like my explanation, he goes and finds
another network to join with.
But in reality, I can never attack the "wrong" system, for i have every right
to know at all times, everything that is on my network. Therefore, there is
no "attack."
Best,
Ian
pgpPSOjR2Qiwu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
