Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: Who's liable?
From: "HarryM" <harrym () the-group org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:28:17 +0100
Kelly Martin said: IMO, it is Constitutionally permissible for a state to make it a criminal offense for a person to operate a computer system in such a manner that a substantial, avoidable risk exists that that computer system may be used in the furtherance of illegal acts, especially if the operator of the computer is or should have been aware of the substantial risk. Whether any existing law does so is another question. Mate, if that were the case, half the computer systems at half the buisnesses in america would be breaking the law... HarryM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service. For more information on this free incident handling, management and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
Current thread:
- RE: Who's liable?, (continued)
- RE: Who's liable? Liam Burrow (Oct 13)
- RE: Who's liable? Russell Berry (Oct 13)
- RE: Who's liable? Brian Taylor (Oct 14)
- Re: Who's liable? Frank (Oct 14)
- RE: Who's liable? Michael Conlen (Oct 14)
- RE: Who's liable? Rob Keown (Oct 13)
- Re: Who's liable? Kelly Martin (Oct 13)
- Re: Who's liable? Doug Foster (Oct 14)
- Re: Who's liable? Kelly Martin (Oct 14)
- RE: Who's liable? Shashi Dookhee (Oct 14)
- Re: Who's liable? HarryM (Oct 14)
- Re: Who's liable? macdaddy (Oct 14)
- Message not available
- Re: Who's liable? Jason Giglio (Oct 14)
- Re: Who's liable? Kelly Martin (Oct 13)