Re: MS Blaster author / morning_wood misinformed

[yossarian <yossarian () planet nl>]

Entering is going into a house without breaking a lock. Breaking in, well,
that is when there is some lock, and it is broken. Insurance companies
really like this difference, if there is no signs of breaking and entering
(which b.t.w. is a legal term in the US also...), you don't get money.

Furthermore, if you don't lock your car, and sometime the pohlice checks,
you'll be fined. I think that is absolutely correct, since you are wasting
law enforcements time and taxpayers money, if you make it too tempting. Kind
of biblical, don't lead someone into temptation. But hey, where a
calvinistic country, just look at our PM's face....

Bit sad this has to be explained. Think some people in security need some
legal training.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schmehl" <pauls () utdallas edu>
To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] MS Blaster author / morning_wood misinformed


> --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 6:22 PM +0200 Peter Busser
> <peter () trusteddebian org> wrote:
> > I don't know about US, Canadian, German or Chinese law. But in Dutch law
> > there is a big difference between entering a house and stealing stuff
and
> > breaking into a house and stealing exactly the same stuff. Apparently
the
> > house owner has a responsibility of his own.
> And the difference is?
>
> Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> http://www.utdallas.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

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