Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!ncsuvx!gatech!rutgers!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Possible Fines for Virus Perpetrator
Message-ID: <4926@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 9 Nov 88 14:40:52 GMT
References: <456@l5comp.UUCP> <12081@dscatl.UUCP> <16600@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5332@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1676@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <5347@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Distribution: na
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 30

In article <5347@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
>In article <1676@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> night@pawl11.pawl.rpi.edu (Trip Martin) writes:

>>Okay, suppose a bank follows this logic and has generally poor locks
>>on their place of business.  While the guy who breaks into a bank is
>>still a criminal, the bank is also to blame, since it holds lots of 

>In both law and philosophy, the bank is *not* to blame.  Simply because
>they don't have a vault adequate to stop a certain class of criminal
>does not make them to blame in any way.  No matter how good the vault
>is, enough criminals and enough determination can be found to crack it
>and that does not put any blame on the bank.  To say otherwise is to

The law says that you have to take reasonable precautions.  For 
example, landlords *are* liable in cases where they didn't put locks on
doors in areas where there are security risks.  Of course the person
breaking in is guilty too.









--
I never thought much of sendmail anyway.
Jon Zeeff      			Ann Arbor, MI
umix!b-tech!zeeff  		zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us