Re: Destroying PCs remotely?

[ktabic <lists () ktabic co uk>]

On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 16:29, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:49:44PM +0100, John.Airey () rnib org uk said:
> > Your constitution says (Amendment V) "No person shall ... be deprived of
> > life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". 
> >
> > How you can have due process when any warnings will be on the PC that has
> > been destroyed? Unless of course you find out the person's address. If you
>
> You can't.  But off-the-cuff comments essentially wishing doom on
> people you don't like aren't violations of the Constitution.  When we
> make them against spammers, we view it as justifiable frustation.  When
> Hatch makes them against copyright violators, folks come out of the
> woodwork spewing venom.  Some of them, ironically, calling for the
> destruction of his PC without due process.  Hatch wasn't introducing a
> bill, he was bitching about people doing something illegal that he
> personally disagrees with, and that has a potential direct effect on him
> since he holds some copyrights.

There is a difference between us and Hatch. How many of us are in a a
position to make changes to the law? He choose to be a representative of
the people. He chosse to place himself in the public visability on a
world stage. When he makes of the cuff remarks to the press, he either
has to mean it or think very carefully about it (the proverbial engage
brain before opening mouth), because to the press and to the people what
he says is what is being represented in government. What we say is a
representation of veiws in the IT community.

> If he'd said "spammer" instead of "copyright violator" we'd all be
> cheering him on.  Instead, you're making statements like "people like
> him give Christians a bad name", which is really ironic in an email
> signed with an anti-Evolution sig.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html