-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul D. Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 7:30 PM
>
> As nice as it would be if there were some accountability, the
> law is in
> your favor because the attacker broke the law. The questions about
> reasonable and prudent practice come mostly from your
> liability if your
> site is used to attack another site, or if your company suffers
> shareholder lawsuits due to a breach. I haven't seen any
> significant caselaw in this area specificly relating to computer
> intrustions though, so it's not so cut and dried.
Paul,
you are right, my mistake. Yes, you can still prosecute the intruder.
What stuck in my mind was the liability that opens oneself up to
lawsuits, primarily shareholders. Donn Parker was referencing
Negligence in 'Fighting Computer Crime' on page 429. I quote (without
permission...):
'According to the American Jurisprudence 2d, Sect. 135, "foresight of
harm lies at the foundation of the duty to use care and therefore of
negligence. The broad test of negligence is what a reasonably prudent
person would foresee and would do in the light of this foresight
under the circumstances."' Donn goes on describing it a little
better, followed by a small paragraph about Criminal and Civil Law.
As Ned said, he would win a suit based on these circumstances.
I guess, I'll a penny back...
Regards,
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.1
Comment: PGP or S/MIME (X.509) encrypted email preferred.
iQA/AwUBOJd3vkRKym0LjhFcEQLMqgCdGdyuSNo61v7oNzjBsL3i30IEP8MAn2oa
FTz89Xtn4vDFor1OiXNweUPt
=rLTR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
