Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cepu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!amd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!scw
From: scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Legalities
Message-ID: <440@cepu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 13:21:52 EST
Article-I.D.: cepu.440
Posted: Thu Jan 31 13:21:52 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Feb-85 05:01:30 EST
References: <2645@sdcc3.UUCP> <10300007@ccvaxa.UUCP>
Reply-To: scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods)
Organization: VA Wadsworth Med. Center; LA CA
Lines: 18
Summary: 

In article <10300007@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (Scott Preece) writes:
>>	Of course, once clear targets (like a broadcast carrier in an
>>	operational service) are obvious, this could change.
>----------
>How is the broadcast carrier any more a clear target than the
>existing backbone sites?

Well, it's one (1) single target as opposed to many scattered targets.
The only way to handle that would be to attack all targets (backbone sites)
at once, this would drag in AT&T (two of the backbone sites are owned
by AT&T) along with AT&T's HUGE legal staff, not a very inviting target.
But a single medimum size company, (Stargate, whatever its real name is)
is much more vunerable to this kind of attack and hence must cover its ass
in advance.
-- 
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp:	{ {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"