Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
David Knaack wrote:
>
> From: Gabe <gabeman@earthling.net>
> >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?
>
> What kind of silly question is that? Bombs (aka explosives) are used
> for many good reasons, mining comes to mind. Around here explosives
> are about the only way to get a basement or septic system.
But use some common sense! Do you obviously think that a professional
construction worker
or demolition contractor would come on there and say he has 20 bucks and
wants to build a
remote explosive trigger? How could any good come out of that????
-Gabe
> IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing bombs and
> methods of triggering a bomb or what kind of bomb/explosive is
> appropriate for a particular use, none of that is illegal under federal
> law. The actual manufacture of an explosive without a liscense to
> do so is illegal, however discussions of how to do so should not
> be (I don't know the laws on that for sure though, judging by the
> pryrotechnics news groups it is not).
I never said anything was wrong with that, but I was particularly
nervous
after reading the original letter which I restated above.
> >> 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.
>
> I Agree, unless that data was created under contract to a company,
> in which case they still have IP rights to it (as do you, unless you
> specificly wavied them).
>
> >> 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).
>
> Ignorance of policy has never been a justification for breaking it.
> 'Usage indicates acceptance' clauses are common in policy
> documents, and seem to apply even if you are unaware of the
> existance of the document.
> Therefore, a service provider could legally maintain a policy that
> they monitor, record and search every piece of data that passes
> through there system without notifying you.
> Also, if they have the right to search any data that is on their
> equipment, then they have the right to search any data that
> you cause to be transmitted through their equipment.
>
> >You have to
> >consent to be photographed and filmed, why shouldn't consent be required
> >for data transmission monitoring?
>
> Actually I think that the law states that if you appear in a photographic
> record
> you have the right to prevent that image from being destributed (you have a
> non-exclusive copyright to part of the image, specificly, the image of you).
> (I haven't seen the laws on this though, this is just what I seem to recall
> from
> reading about it on the 'net).
>
> >> 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?
>
> I agree completely, encrypted data is intended for viewing only
> by parties who have access to the decryption key, anyone else
> is free to view only the encrypted data.
>
> I'd like to see encrypted data be transmitted without headers
> indicating that it is encrypted, that way it would be very difficult
> to prove if it was encrypted or not. Then you could occasionally
> transmit blocks of random data, which would be impossable to
> distunguish from encrypted data, except by the reciever.
> Anyone monitoring the connection would have no idea if you
> were transmitting encrypted data or garbage.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I think it should be illegal for them to attempt to crack the encryption.
> Encrypted data should be treated the same as info stored in your
> own head, if you don't want to reveal the data, or even reveal the
> nature of the data, there should be no recourse for law enforcement.
>
> Indeed, forcing you you reveal data that you know would incriminate
> you would violate your 5th amendment rights.
>
> >> 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.
>
> So posession of a stick of dynamite with a wireless detonator
> of your own design and constrution would be illegal, whereas
> posession of a stick of dynamite with a commercial detonator
> (that is, a detonator designed and sold by someone else)
> is legal (and it is, according to federal law)?
>
> >> 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.
>
> No, according to federal law you need no license at all to purchase
> and detonate explosives (if you are over 21 years of age), as long as
> you do not manufacture or store them. Of course local laws will apply,
> you probably cannot detonate explosives inside city limits without some
> kind of license and permit.
That apalls me.
-Gabe
> DK
References: