$author = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ; > > Sorry, but Government facts and science research journals would dispute what > you say. Most hackers are not experienced in the intricacies of software > engineering nor do they have backgrounds in computer science. Most of them > buy their tools: sniffers, port scanners, war dialers, root kits, from > underground websites I would not dare visit for fear of who might be lurking > there. They do not write their own code for these tasks and they do not have > to, and THAT is the problem, so I am afraid I am indeed "with it."
how exactly do you intend to enforce a ban on such software? people forget that the internet allows easy access to servers located outside the reach of authorities that might wish to restrict access to software or information... so if you can't stop the "hackers" getting the software, what does restriciting access to it achieve? well, for one a sysadmin would not be allowed to have the software to run against his own systems. > No one would seriously contemplate making it illegal for firemen training > novice firemen to set fires at some Fire Academy to see if the apprentice > firemen can effectively put it out. Neither do I suggest that security > specialists, if you indeed are one, and Network Administrators should be > barred from using hacking tools to check the security of some network. The > malicious hackers are the people who should not have this software. unfortunately they still sell matches and lighters at the corner store, so the means to prevent arson can not be totally removed and hence we still have firemen responding to cases of arson... > So what does this paragraph above mean? Neither the hacker nor the vendor > has the PC user's interests at heart. One's motive is to violate a computer > user's privacy, the other's motive is profit. And do you think it is only > the Department of Defense or the FBI that can be victims of hackers? A > cancer patient in a hospital ward whose vital signs must be checked every > hour via computer can be a victim of a hacker, many of whom are not such > "benign white hatters" as you were in your scenario above. if a hospital has patient management computers hooked up to a network that can be reached from any untrusted network (and i am talking no connection, not just firewalls or other access restrictions) then i would not let them treat me if my life depended on it... > Any invasion of privacy is an obscenity, whether it is Big Brother, or a > malicious hacker probing someone's network or PC for personal information. > It is the height of arrogance and an abuse of power; actually it is > "cyberrape", and should not be tolerated. keep the arguement to facts and avoid hyperbole like "cyberrape" and you will sound more convincing... you are so concerned about privacy, and yet you advocate restricting the posession and distribution of software which could only be implemented through severe violations of the very privacy you hold so dear... i think you need to reconsider your position... marty -- "To err is human, to forgive is not my policy. --root" - sig file on slashdot _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
