Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
David Knaack wrote:
>
> From: IGGYBIG@aol.com <IGGYBIG@aol.com>
> >damn. next thing we know someone is going to want to know how to
> >make C4 from bleach.
>
> About 10 mins after I sent that my VP came up and fired me.
> Any body need a pretty decent Delphi programmer?
Did I not warn you guys? How can there be any GOOD use of a system
involving bombs?
> Question 1.
> Do you believe that any data stored on company equipment
> is property of the company, including personal data created
> or downloaded by the employee using that equipment?
Yes unless the equipment was given or sold to you. If it is owned by the
company, whatever is stored on it belongs to the company. If you export
data to another machine, it is no longer company property.
> Question 2a.
> Do you believe that any data you cause to be transmitted
> across any computing device on a network is legally inspectable
> by the owner or that device? (this includes the internet, every
> machine this data goes across is owned either by the govenrment
> or a corporation).
Only if the owner of the equipment has notified the user that
transmissions may be monitored (before transmission occurs). You have to
consent to be photographed and filmed, why shouldn't consent be required
for data transmission monitoring?
> Question 2b.
> If said data is encrypted, should the owner of a device the
> data passes through have the right to either decrypt
> the data, or legally order decryption by the transmitter?
Nope. If s/he is monitoring the data, all s/he can have is the data
itself. If he can't decrypt it, it's his problem. If you sent a picture
across your company network in some crazy obscure format and your boss
couldn't open it, he shouldn't be able to make you open it for him
should he?
> Question 2c.
> If the answer to 2b was no, should law enforcement agencies
> be able to legally order the decryption of data when they believe
> that it pertains directly to a crime?
Nope. Cracking it is their problem.
> Question 3.
> Do you belive that law enforcement agencies should be
> able to conduct searches of your personaly computer and
> storage devices (including encrypted data) if they believe
> that information pertaining to an ongoing investigation may
> be stored there?
With a warrant, I suppose. But they'd have to figure out passwords and
how to decrypt data. As I said before, they get the data, not an
interpreter.
> Question 4.
> Do you believe that posession of information that could be
> used to create a device that could harm someone should
> be illegal?
Nope. Seeing and doing are different. If I'm married and I see a
beautiful woman, it's fine. But if I screw her, it's adultery. I think
I'm rambling.
> Question 5.
> Do you believe that posession of a homebuilt explosive
> device (that does not violate the federal law against
> manufacturing your own explosives, ie, a device that
> uses commercial dynamite, purchased legally, but
> fitted with a homebuilt initator) should be illegal?
Yep, but you have to define explosive. The government might twist that
to make your furnace or anything that ignites be classified as
explosive.
> Question 6.
> Do you believe that testing a device as described in
> question 5 on your own property, in such a manner
> that it would be unreasonable that it could cause
> damange to someone elses person or property
> should be illegal. Note that detonating commercial
> explosives such as dynamite is acceptable under
> federal law.
Uhh don't you have to have a license to blow stuff up? Sure you can blow
up whatever you want if you have a license.
-Gabe
> If you are inclined to, please provide reasons for your
> answers.
>
> I think that pretty much covers my position on the
> subject, thoughts, comments or questions?
>
> DK
Follow-Ups:
References: