But I don't think the purpose of the stop in the first place was prosecution. Nor was the intent of the woman's original call.
The purpose was _prevention_. To further your example of the IIS statement, if the university had just gone through a catastrophic hacking event caused by an unknown student (say erasing all files on the medical school server?) and I walk by and hear you say that, then yes, I think I should be aware that I heard you say that. I would probably look at you fairly closely, and make a judgment call about whether or not I felt you posed an actual specific threat. Because I was taught that the responsibility of an event is now partially on my shoulders if I am aware of it, whether I report it or not. Just my 2 cents. Jerry Johnson >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/16/02 02:41PM >>> Nick McClure wrote: > Yes, if the people who you are making a joke with think it is a threat. So if I joke to the person on the desk opposite of me that university will be sorry for not patching IIS and you walk by and hear that through the open window and you think it is a threat, it is a threat? Probably there is some legal definition of a threat, but one would think that for federal prosecution under the law that forbids terrorist threats some things like "the intent to convey a message of adverse consequences of a terrorist nature" needs to be proven. Which is a 2 stage burden of proof (both the intent to convey and the content of the message need to be proven), which will not be easy on the prosecution. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
