Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!enmasse!drilex!dricej
From: dricej@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet
Message-ID: <183@drilex.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 30-Aug-86 11:13:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: drilex.183
Posted: Sat Aug 30 11:13:51 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Aug-86 21:35:43 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <15341@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: dricej@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson)
Organization: Data Resources/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Lines: 25

In article <1683@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>
>Another related, but perhaps missed point in the bill of special
>interest to universities is that it is a crime for someone that
>"intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility" in addition 
>to the usual break in!  This crime can have a fine of up to $250,000 and
>a year in prison.  What a tool for power hungry security people to
>use on students that like to play around to see what their limits are.
>Just one short sentence, but what an affect.
>
>-- Glenn Tenney

I think that 'students that like to play around to see what their limits are'
are exactly the target of this clause.  Without this clause, any penalties on
unauthorized access would be meaningless.  In both business and academia,
I think that most of the really serious security breachs were done by people
who already have some authorization to access the computer.

I haven't looked at the bill (I understand that it was posted with 14 bit
compression).  Does it cover malicious denial of service?  (E.g intentionally
wedging the machine?)
-- 
Craig Jackson
UUCP: {harvard,linus}!axiom!drilex!dricej
BIX:  cjackson