Re: Destroying PCs remotely?

[Ron DuFresne <dufresne () winternet com>]

It's interesting that variations on this theme are discussed, and
rejected, at least once a year iin the various security lists.  The fact
that security professionals can be brought back to this topic on a fairly
regular basis to rehash the issue shows that the level of frustration for
property rights, privacy, and all the other fine areas that these
proposals touch upon, are not just black and white.  It's when we get to
such a conservative stance and outlook that the rejection of such
'methods' is harder to putdown as ridiculas and outright rejected by the
majority that the early 21st century can truely be dubbed the "fearful and
paranoid years of lost freedoms".  The sad fact is, that it's not
unconceivable that this could well happen in the near future...

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
--
--------------------------------
They just wanted to control the uncontrolable, and nobody could see the
fault in that.  So, one and all they allowed their delegates to vote down
the -=democratic=- freedoms that had lasted for shortly over 200 years,
and became that which they had long fought against...
                ---anonnymous


On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
> EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
> UNIX and Linux          | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
> http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
        ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.

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