🚀 go-pugleaf

John,

> I think it should technically be an "infraction" (if truly just one
> isolated incident), just like running a stop sign "accidentally."
So, you're saying, that if I accidentally port-scan the wrong IP, or do a
counter-scan against an IP that has scanned me, then I should be detained by
the PortScan Police. OK, fine.

>-- I think laws would substantially discourage cracking attempts.
Based on what evidence? *Laws* don't deter crime. *Enforcement* of laws
(possibly) deters crime. There is no way that laws in the US & Canada are
going to stop port scanning done by crackers overseas. Based on my own
experience (and I have the logs to back me up), most port scans are done by
out of country computers. 83% of the scans against my firewall, webservers,
mail server and ftp server are initiated outside of North America. Most come
from Asian countries, and domains that end in .cz (since there is no more
Chekoslavakia, I'm not sure where they're coming from).

> The why does the USA have one of the highest
> violent crime rates in the developed world to go
> along with the highest rate of private ownership
> of lethal weapons?
You are wrong. We aren't even in the top ten per-capita. Since this isn't
alt.why.gunlaws.suck, I won't go into much detail, but the facts are out
there. In fact, if it wasn't you who had initiated the *off-topic*
discussion, I wouldn't even go into details, for *fear* of being flamed for
being off-topic. But, I digress. Here are just two examples of gun/crime
related data that disputes your above assertion:

| The potential defensive nature of guns is indicated by
| the different rates of so-called hot burglaries, where
| residents are at home when the criminals strike.
| Almost half the burglaries in Canada and Britain,
| which have tough gun control laws, are ''hot burglaries.''
| By contrast, the United States, with laxer (gun)
| restrictions, has a ''hot burglary'' rate of only 13
| percent.
____________________________________
| evidence implies that concealed handguns are the
| most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus
| far analyzed by economists, providing a higher
| return than increased law enforcement or incarcer-
| ation, other private security devices, or social
| programs like early educational intervention.*70

|| *70 For a comparison with the efficiency of other
|| methods to reduce crime, see John Donohue and
|| Peter Siegelman, "Is the United States at the Optimal
|| Rate of Crime?" Stanford University School of Law
|| (1996); and Ian Ayres and Steven Levitt, "Measuring
|| Positive Externalities from Unobservable Victim
|| Precaution: An Empirical Analysis of Lojack" (Yale
|| University working paper, October 1996). For a
|| discussion of what constitutes true externalities
|| (both benefits and costs) from crime, see Kermit
|| Daniel and John R. Lott, Jr., "Should Criminal Penalties
|| Include Third-Party Avoidance Costs?" 24 J. Legal
|| Stud. 523-34 ( June 1995).

For more info on *that* subject, go to http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

-Loren
"I'm Libertarian. That means the Republicans
annoy me slightly less than the Democrats"
-Larry Elder - Nov. 2000




John Navas <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:IXRl6.3973$S25.56939@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
> In <kYIl6.60587$_D.11160931@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Keith Paxton"
> <neodoesntw@ntspamknac.com> wrote:
>
> >OK, OK. So we're all having a nice debate on this. Cool. So, to all of
you
> >who would have our glorious Government enact MORE ineffective laws that
they
> >don't have the time or resources to enforce, I pose this scenario:
> >
> >I am a network administrator. I portscan EVERY machine on my network,
many
> >times a week. OOOPS! Sometimes I type the wrong address (I know, I know,
I
> >should write a bash shell script - so sue me ;-). So, anyway, now I have
> >inadvertently scanned your network. Should I be detained by the
PortScanning
> >Police? Thrown in jail? Lose my job? Not only that, but prior to
notifying
> >the owner of the domain that the scanning machine belongs to, I (oh the
> >horror!) do a little scan of my own against the offending IP address.
Again,
> >should I be detained by the PortScanning Police? Thrown in jail? Lose my
> >job?
>
> I think it should technically be an "infraction" (if truly just one
> isolated incident), just like running a stop sign "accidentally."
>
> >Contrary to (what seems to be) popular belief, more ineffective laws are
not
> >going to protect Ma & Pa Kettle from script kiddies and other miscreants
on
> >the Internet.
>
> I disagree -- I think laws would substantially discourage cracking
> attempts.
>
> >Just like more and more gun laws aren't going to keep the
> >gang-banger in the neighborhood from poppin' a cap in your ass when you
look
> >at him the wrong way.
>
> The why does the USA have one of the highest violent crime rates in the
> developed world to go along with the highest rate of private ownership
> of lethal weapons?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>      CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>