<soapbox on>
In a way, you answered your own question. Speed limit laws are neither a
'safety' nor a 'cost' issue. They are actually a tax imposed by the state /
city. Note that most states (and cities and counties) list 'tickets' as an
income in their budget. For some, it is a significant percentage (30%+).
While they claim to pass the laws 'for the children' or 'for the
environment', that's a load of manure. If no one is harmed by me doing 120
at 3 a.m. on an empty highway, it should not be a ticketable offense.
Arguably, it is a violation of my rights to free speech, free assembly, and
'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Unfortunately, we
have a government elected by a people that are ignorant of how important
freedom really is.
As for the 'right to death', I agree but go even farther. Every one should
have the right to choose the time of their own death, even if they aren't
sick. However, a) insurance companies shouldn't have to pay life insurance
claims unless the contract says so (and the government should NOT mandate it
one way or the other) and b) DOCTORS SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED. If you don't
understand why, check the Netherlands where they have anesthesiologists(Sp?)
who refuse to do their job because they think the patient would be better
off to just go ahead and die. Those whose job it is to protect and preserve
life should never, ever be involved in ending it; the slope is slippery
between willfull suicide and doctor chosen euthanasia (see your history
books under WWII, Nazism, Stalinist Russia, China 1940-present, etc., and
never forget that Hitler was elected by popular democratic vote)
<soapbox off>
i'm done.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul B. Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 7:34 PM
To: Eric
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Legality of port scanning
Eric,
> How about speeding? You can get a speeding ticket even though in the
> vast majority of speeding incidents there is no harm done to anyone.
True, but the motor vehicle violations are put in place to:
1. Keep motorists at a safe speed so injury can be avoided. Have you
ever gone around a corner marked at 35 MPH at 55 MPH and got that
chill when you hit the breaks because you know you going too fast.
Every time you and I speed, we risk injuring ourselves and others.
Every time a port scan is done, this is not the case. If the dest-
ination host is configured correctly, no one is put at risk and no
service is even slowed down.
2. To keep insurance (car and health) costs down. The costs are
secondary to the health and safety issues, of course.
I see this as apples and oranges.
> If it is inflated, then that may be one thing the defense attorney can
> use in defense. It seems logical that the prosecutor will limit the
> level of misdemeanor or felony to the damages he can prove relatively
> easily.
I suppose. I just think this is the type of case that clogs our courts
for no reason. If you every wonder why you file suit and your court date
just for the hearing is 6 months down the road . . . this is why.
> I think it would be nice if it was more explicit. But if it is too
> explicit, it would probably allow serious matters to slip through. I
> also suspect that most prosecutors aren't going to bother with it
> unless there is either serious damages and a relatively easy case or
> the plaintiff has the right connections to get him to do it. It
> might be much easier in a small town or county where the district
> attorney might want something more interesting to break out of a rut.
> Also, many district attorneys might not be interesting in pursuing
> such a case without someone else having already successfully
> prosecuted a similar case.
Hummm . . . I hear what you saying and agree that the case must contain
"verifiable, undeniable damages" before it should be prosecuted. It's
just scares me silly to think that a random packet of I send out can cost
me my car, house, and everything else.
I guess the bottom line for me is: is port scanning really need to be
legislated for or against? I can't help but think that it should not. I
don't mind the concept being debated but actually righting legislation is
overkill.
I can't help but think that the law is a blunt instrument. A bludgeon to
hammer out someone's agenda over someone else's.
> I'd love to hear a district attorney's comments on this.
DA's are political animals. To make comments other than those defined as
"broad sweeping" would not be a good thing. Someone will hold them to it
and they could end up losing their jobs. Look at the DA who kept going
after Kavorkian. He was canned because he kept loosing the cases. Of
course, the last case finally put the man in jail. To bad really. I
think the "right to death" will rear it's head again in the future. It's
just a matter of time. Sooner or latter someone is going to redefine the
hypocratic oath such that people with little or no quality of life and no
real hope of every regain their quality of life can, if they choose, and
with prior counseling and forethought, terminate their existence legally.
If you could see my last remaining grandparent you would understand why I
have that opinion.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
President
Brown Technologies Network, Inc. http://www.btechnet.com/
Systems and Applications Design, Development, Deployment, and Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
