Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re:
From: "Paul D. Robertson" <proberts () clark net>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
I suspect you're thinking of the T.J. Hooper case, which Bill Cheswick and I cited in our firewalls book. Here's the quote from the Court of Appeals ruling (60 F.2d 737, 2nd Cir. 1932):
It may be, AIR, the data came from a former AZ State's Attourney at a conference a few years ago. I did take notes, but it was on my old palmtop, and I can't find it or the disk I synched it onto. :(
Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in face common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It may never set its own tests, however persuasive be its usages. Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission... But here there was no custom at all as to receiving sets; some had them, some did not; the most that can be urged is that they had not yet become general. Certainly in such a case we need not pause; when some have thought a device necessary, at least we may say that they were right, and the others too slack. ... We hold [against] the tugs therefore because [if] they had been properly equipped, they would have got the Arlington [weather] reports. The injury was a direct consequence of this unseaworthiness. The issue was whether or not tugboats needed to be equipped with radios to receive weather forecasts.
Sounds more accurate than my memory. Paul (#2 engines in the Nerf rockets, right?) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions proberts () clark net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact." PSB#9280
Current thread:
- Re: Steven M. Bellovin (Aug 27)
- Re: Paul D. Robertson (Aug 30)