Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
From: Firepower5@aol.com <Firepower5@aol.com>
>In a message dated 12/17/98 11:04:04 PM Central Standard Time,
>dknaack@geocities.com writes:
>
>> >> Question 2a.
>> >No, for example I don't believe my e-mails are inspectable by any
server
>> they
>> >go through.
>> No? even if you sent them clear text across a public network?
>> In question 1 you said that data stored on a companys computer
>> is inspectable by that company, this would include data stored
>> in its memory, not just on the harddrive.
>This is a tough one to put in words. If you are an employee of a company,
>they can monitor your e-mail. However, say my e-mail goes through an AOL
>server, then some other servers, then through the geocities server. I
don't
>think that any of these people have the right to monitor my e-mail.
I understand, but why do you believe this? If a company has the right
to inspect any data on their systems, regardless of the reason it is
there, then they have the right to inspect any e-mail you send through
that system. Granted they may not excersize this right due to ethical
considerations, and may even go to lengths to eliminate any records
of transactions, to further protect your identity, but the fact is, they
would have the legal right to do so.
>> >> Question 2c.
>> >Yes, mainly because of terrorists, crackers, and other wackos.
>> >Note: I don't believe you are any of the above.
>>
>> So what should be penalty for refusal to decrypt be?
>
>Well, I don't think there is too much encryption out there the FBI can't
crack
>themselves (and I am sure there is nothing the NSA can't crack, so if it is
>some guy cracking in to government computers and stuff, then the NSA can
>figure it out.)
Not true actually, heavy encryption systems, such as long key length
public key encryption are safe, it is highly unlikely that any organization
has the computer power to crack them. This is one reason the government
is concerned about the ease with which people have access to industrial
strength encryption, they (currently) have no way to crack it. Note that a
vary large cluster of fast machines could probably crack the best encryption
in a matter of months, however, such cracking would be limited to the
highest priority messages, the time and money requred to crack messages
from the average Joe just isn't worth it.
>If for some reason they cannot/will not decrypt the data,
>send them to jail, if it is something that is important they will be in
jail
>anyway, if it is unimportant, they will decrypt it.
That depends entierly on the person, some of us would be willing
to go to prison on principle, even if the encrypted data was a recipe
for grandma's cookies.
As far as I am concerned, it is the same issue of testifying against
oneself, I will not decrypt data that would serve to incriminate me.
>> >> Question 4.
>> >No. There is information on the internet and such about how to create
an
>> >anthrax bomb, etc. If they store it somewhere where it's under the AUP
>> >it's OK with me.
>> AUP?
>> I agree, posession of information does not constitute intent
>> to cause damage to persons or property, however, information
>> such as child pornography is different, it is evidence of a crime
>> already commited, should it be illegal to posess too? For what
>> reason?
>AUP = Acceptable Use Policy. If it is the policy of the server to allow
>porno, I don't care about it. However, using Geocities or whatever for a
>porno website is different.
This depends on the nature of the information I think. For instance,
a server (in the US) that allows pornography cannot allow child
pornograpy, as it is illegal in and of itself.
>> >> Question 5.
>> >Hard to say. For some people it is OK, but there are lots of wackos.
>> I'd say no, again, possesion does not constitute intent to
>> harm (unless of course there is evidence of that intent,
>> in which case one could possably be tried for intent
>> to cause damage).
>
>What's the crime called if someone finds out you are planning on killing
>someone?
Yes, it is probably a crime to plan to commit a crime (probably dependent
on a lawers ability to convice a jury that you actually planned on executing
the plan, as opposed to just demonstrating that it COULD be done in the
manner described). However, simply posessing an explosive (for instance)
is not a crime (obviously, as explosives are generally used as tools, not
weapons (in a non military setting of course :)).
DK
Follow-Ups: