🚀 go-pugleaf

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

In <976pnb$jon$2@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott
Norwood) wrote:

>
>In article <WqBl6.3899$S25.55097@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>>
>>In <97656j$d8f$2@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott
>>Norwood) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm all in favor of laws which prohibit unauthorized access and
>>>damage to computer systems, but a simple portscan does not constitute
>>>unauthorized access!  It's the equivalent of asking a machine which
>>>public services it provides and nothing else.  A portscan in and of
>>>itself does not constitute a threat and should not be treated as one.
>>
>>Port scanning is like sneaking around late at night trying to open front
>>doors.  Suggesting that's not a threat if the sneak doesn't actually
>>enter is at best naive IMHO.
>
>We obviously disagree here.
>
>My own preference is for laws which actually address the problems
>which need to be solved, rather than laws which address actions
>which sometimes cause the problems in question.

Whereas my own preference is for laws that prohibit activities which
present a clear danger without a sufficiently important compensating
benefit.  Attempting entry without authorization is not innocent.

>I'd rather have
>a law that makes breaking and entering (which is genuinely harmful
>to society) a crime, rather than one which criminalizes walking
>down the street late at night and looking (not touching) to see
>whose doors are open...

Port scanning is attempting entry without authorization, not just
looking.

>I can understand the other viewpoint, but I don't agree with it.

Fair enough.  I'm simply calling a spade a spade.  ;-)

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