Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!sch
From: sch@linus.UUCP (Stephen C. Hemminger)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: ABC's Nightline and Software Piracy
Message-ID: <303@linus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Aug-83 08:23:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: linus.303
Posted: Tue Aug 30 08:23:01 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Aug-83 21:50:16 EDT
References: <1925@tekecs.UUCP> <5148@cornell.UUCP> <460@spanky.UUCP>
Organization: MITRE Corp., Bedford MA
Lines: 19


    To take the house analogy one step furthur (maybe too far).

You can not be prosecuted for knocking on doors of houses in a
neighborhood, unless there is a NO SOLICITORS sign.   I argue therefore
that simply finding out that a certain network address connects to a
certain machine is not grounds for prosecution.

After that, the analogy starts to break down.  The trouble is that all
the efforts to define new "computer laws", invariably require careful
examination of too many factors.  I don't trust politicians or industry
to define computer crime statutes in a precise manner.  They are too
reactionary.


-- 
Stephen Hemminger,  Mitre Corp. Bedford MA 
	{allegra,genrad,ihnp4, utzoo}!linus!sch	(UUCP)
	linus!sch@mitre-bedford			(ARPA)