🚀 go-pugleaf

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

In <97c3uq$hm1$2@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott
Norwood) wrote:

>
>In article <Wggm6.4051$S25.60786@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>>
>>In <Zt%l6.65747$_D.12140610@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Keith Paxton"
>><neodoesntw@ntspamknac.com> wrote:
>>
>>On the contrary -- compliance with seat belt laws, for example, was
>>substantial prior to enforcement.  (It's better with enforcement, but is
>>still not universal.)  Laws help to establish minimum standards of
>>social conduct.
>
>Sorry, but you just hit a personal hot button with this comment.
>What gives anyone the right to tell me what I can and can't do
>within my own car that doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else?

1.  Not being secured with belts makes you a more dangerous driver,
which poses a risk to the public.

2.  Your injuries in the event of an accident tend to be more severe if
you are not wearing belts, which puts an increased burden on public
resources (ambulance, hospital, etc.).

>I do wear seat belts and I do believe that they significantly
>decrease the risk of injury or death in automobile accidents, but
>I still believe strongly that no one should be compelling me to
>wear seat belts.

Frankly I don't care if you are foolish enough to drive without belts on
private property, as long as you are not on the public highways.

>I suppose that the public health argument could
>be made (higher rates of injury => higher costs for medicaid, etc.
>if people get in accidents and then can't afford doctors' fees),
>but the connection is pretty tenuous.

I think it's pretty solid.

>In any case, there's a distinct difference between port-scanning
>and any sort of life-threatening activity, so this whole discussion
>is getting totally irrelevant.

I disagree -- the issue at hand was whether laws can be effective
without enforcement.

>I would never argue that port-scanning someone else's hosts without
>permission is a 'polite' or 'friendly' thing to do, but I would
>still say that there's not a huge justification for laws against
>something like this which is not destructive in and of itself,
>but which 'might' lead to destructive or otherwise criminal activity,
>especially since there is no serious threat to life or property as
>the result of a portscan.

The problems are that: (1) there are serious risks to property; (2)
unauthorized scanning has no legitimate purpose; and (3) most scanning
is neither 'polite' nor 'friendly'.

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