Re: Disabling QAZ (was Re: Port 139 scans)

["Mike Lewinski" <mike () rockynet com>]

> Yep.  The problem with that is that current laws on the books (in the US
> at least) make this an illegal solution.  If memory serves me correctly,
> the one I'm thinking about is worded something like:
>
> "...any person who without authorization, accesses, modifies, deletes or
> destroys..."
>
> The penalties are pretty stiff too.  The best of intentions don't negate
> the fact that it's illegal.

In some jurisdictions, the "necessity defense" _may_ allow for this type
of conduct (especially if the normal channels of redress have failed).

This is about the worst mangling of English I've seen in a while, but
you'll see the point I hope:

"The defendant's need to avoid the harm to [himself] [herself] or to the
person or
property of another clearly outweighed, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law which the
defendant is accused of violating."

Mike
--
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.