🚀 go-pugleaf

[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/>