>But again, they were arrested because they broke a specific law, ie. the
>possession of certain tools. This does not refute the point that if a
>specific law has not been broken, the issue of intent is irrelevant.
The "specific law" in BernieS' case was "possesion of an illegal
access device". This horribly vague law has been used to
arrest many a hacker. Then, during the trial, the prosecution argues
intent to make it stick.
>If it _were_ against the law to perform a port scan, it would not matter
>whether the intent was to check for vulnerabilities for an actual break in
>or if it were just someone playing with a new scanning tool. It's the
>same as someone stealing a car to sell it and someone stealing a car to
>joyride. Both are covered by existing statutes, but the question of
>intent may make the penalties worse for one.
It's always possible that some SS agent will decide that your copy
of NMAP constitutes an illegal access device, and arrest you for
it. They could do this without you even using it. If they get to court
with it, and you had actually USED it, well then the Prosecution's
"intent" case is pretty easy to prove, no?
Ryan
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
