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.

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.

The point remains, scanning is not illegal, so the question of intent is irrelevant from a legal perspective.

-Kent

Ryan Russell wrote:

>This is, IMHO, irrelevant.  If an action is not illegal, you cannot be
>prosecuted for it.  Period.  I don't see how it can be relevant what
>your intentions were.  If I stand on the street and examine your house
>looking for ways to break in, it's not illegal.  It's simply not
>relevant what I intend to do, only what I have actually done, provided
>the action is not illegal.  If I do commit an illegal act, intentions
>may play a roll in the severity of the charges, but again this is
>irrelevant if no charges can be brought.

Not true.  There are a whole bunch of laws relating to "intent" that
you can be prosecuted under.  Look at all the "burglar tools" type
statutes.  BernieS got thrown in prison for having a red box,
not for using it.

                         Ryan

-- 
******************************************************************************************
Kent Hundley
Network Systems Consultant
International Network Services

Co-author of "Cisco Security Architectures"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0071347089/qid=931982651/sr=1-3/002-7481492-7385613

******************************************************************************************
 

Reply via email to