From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 22 17:38:49 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93F716A418 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:38:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from mail.potentialtech.com (internet.potentialtech.com [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB4E13C44B for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:38:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (pr40.pitbpa0.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BDFEBC84; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:38:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:38:47 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20080122123847.4e64b00e.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20080122123149.05837a85@scorpio> References: <20080122125651.V2077@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080122123149.05837a85@scorpio> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: are we CRIMINALS? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:38:49 -0000 In response to Gerard : > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:03:27 +0100 (CET) > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351 > > > > jest first step to criminalize unix at all > > No really. This case involved an individual who was accessing and > acquiring information using falsified credentials for an apparent > nefarious purpose. > > If you have a key making machine, does that give you the right to make > a key to my home and then enter it without my permission? It is not the > 'tool' that is being addressed here; but rather, what the individual > did with it. If this individual believed what he was purported to by > doing was legal and above board, then why did he openly commit perjury > and use falsified credentials? Quite frankly, it is criminals like him > who cause other lawful individuals problems. That's exactly the point. You are correct that it's the action, not the tool, that is criminal. However, it's being pushed all over the world to outlaw the _tools_. And this case leaves a lot of ambiguity that hints that the tools themselves are criminal in nature. I think most everyone, me included, is concerned about that possible side-effect. As far as the cracker, I hope he gets the chair. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com