🚀 go-pugleaf

John Underwood <abuse@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in
news:iB3dE8ErA+B8EAVP@the-underwoods.org.uk: 

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 at 14:12:14, Justin Catterall wrote in
> demon.service (Reference: <5GLo6cA+O5B8EAn0@masonsmusic.co.uk>)
> 
> 
>>Should the hostname be setup with a fake identity then the CLI of
>>the number logging in as that hostname should narrow the identity
>>of the criminal considerably.
> 
> An interesting point occurs to me. Drawing a parallel with
> motoring offences where unless the actual driver of a vehicle is
> identified, the registered keeper is held responsible for offences
> committed - presumably about the only defence would be that the
> vehicle was stolen at the time.
> 
> It is a contractual obligation, I think, not to allow anyone else
> to have access to your password than those covered in your
> licence. Anything posted on your account would be your
> responsibility unless you could identify who it was. The fact that
> your machine was capable of being misused in that way could,
> itself, be actionable. 

Being put on the sex offenders register for carelessness with your 
password seems a bit draconian to me.  Is it in the Terrorism Bill (an 
apt title if you regard the British population as the victims)?

-- 
Percy Picacity