🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:24:54 GMT, 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.

You can't POSSIBLY mean that.
Port scanning is like flipping thru magazines at a newspaper stand.
Problems arise when users on Network connected machines don't
understand or realize that their OS has setup a newstand and is
providing some pamphlets and newspapers w/o telling them so.

M Phrogg
-=-
"I oppose it because I believe individuals need the 
means to protect their own privacy whether from 
governments or criminals. We need to find a balance 
between individual freedom and state authority for 
(the presumed) general welfare and security. We want 
security, but there is no security if anyone has too 
much power." 
   ==Esther Dyson comments to tech.thirsty.com on why
   the UK's RIP bill is "clueless policy"