🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <u7jj9ts0steh0ktna13h5e0ltf07qu9u8f@4ax.com>, rtoledo@gte.net wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:35:21 GMT,  John Navas
><spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:

>>The difference is that you are authorized.  You aren't authorized to
>>scan my system.  ...

>>ROTFL.  I can't tell you how many people have made that kind of claim
>>only to be compromised.  
>>
>>"Security is a process, not a product."
>>                  - Bruce Schneier
>
>	John on this we will always disagree,

You may well be right.

>I am arguing this one
>because I believe in freedom above all, I do respect others and expect
>the same, I don't want the big brother that some of us are settleing
>for

It might surprise you to know that I also believe in freedom; it's just
that your freedom ends where mine begins -- you are not free to enter my
private property without authorization.  What makes you think that you
are?  If you do have respect for others, why would you do so?

>	As for believing that I'm inpenetrable, NO I don't think it
>for a second, but my argument is this, IF they get in, then they have
>trespassed against me and have gone BEYOND pinging my door, more like
>they drove in under the rug "literally"

So you have no objection to everyone trying to open the doors of your
house?  You wouldn't call "big brother" to put a stop to it?

>	I hate to think that this government will soon be doing what
>England is now doing openly, that is reading all email going in and
>out, and while the are units within this country that might be doing
>it too, at least it's happening at the risk of jail (I hope) I they
>get caught

Sorry, but I see no relevance to the subject at hand.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>