>A couple of guys here in NL noticed a window to the bank open at night
>when they were walking the dog. They notified the bank.
OK
>The bank says they will pay attention. However not much changes. They
>notified the bank again.
OK
>A couple of weeks, the window is dutifully closed.
>
>Then one day the window is left open again.
>
>Now they climb into the window, and take pictures to prove that it's
>not just the toilet that they get acces to.
Oops. Not OK. It's not legal, and even if they have the best
intentions, it's not safe. Suppose someone sees them enter and calls
the cops? Is their story the truth, or just a cover? Even if they
could prove they notified the bank twice before, how do we know they
didn't enter the bank with the intention of stealing everything
valuable and using their cover story if they got caught?
I think a more appropriate action in such a case would be to notify
the media and let them expose the bank for the idiots they are.
>They get arrested after they report the banks mistakes.
And, of course, that's just wrong because they obviously weren't
thieves and were only trying to get a problem fixed.
... But it's hard to explain technical issues (by definition), and it's especially difficult to explain them to legislators, prosecutors, judges, and juries....
Tom Phoenix
rootbeer+fors-d@...
Aug 29, 2001 8:24 pm
] On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Dave Sill wrote: ] ] > jasons@... wrote: ] > ] > >... We need a way to help the legal system show leniency when people ] > >were...
David Keegel
djk@...
Aug 30, 2001 12:16 am
... I agree. But it won't be easy to accomplish, since I'm sure that most legislators (judges, juries, reporters, columnists, employers) think that "breaking...
Tom Phoenix
rootbeer+fors-d@...
Aug 30, 2001 2:42 pm
... Tom> I agree. But it won't be easy to accomplish, since I'm sure that most Tom> legislators (judges, juries, reporters, columnists, employers) think that ...
merlyn@...
Aug 30, 2001 3:21 pm
... Tom> I agree. But it won't be easy to accomplish, since I'm sure that most Tom> legislators (judges, juries, reporters, columnists, employers) think that ...
Frossie
frossie@...
Aug 30, 2001 7:11 pm
... Agreed. As Randall argued in his trial, our computers (as agents of our bidding) access and modify the content of computers owned by other organizations...
jasons@...
Aug 30, 2001 7:59 pm
] On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Keegel wrote: ] ] > getting legislators to focus more on intent (eg: requiring clear ] > mal-intent for computer crime offenses)...
David Keegel
djk@...
Aug 31, 2001 1:51 am
... The logical extension to this analogy is that having noticed the door is open, we step just inside the room to have a quick look - to see whether the...
Dave Mitchell
davem@...
Aug 30, 2001 3:56 pm
... Or "to look if indeed this is the room we thought should be locked". A couple of guys here in NL noticed a window to the bank open at night when they were...
R.E.Wolff@...
Aug 30, 2001 4:26 pm
... OK ... OK ... Oops. Not OK. It's not legal, and even if they have the best intentions, it's not safe. Suppose someone sees them enter and calls the cops?...
Dave Sill
de5-fors-discuss@...
Aug 30, 2001 5:22 pm
... In that case, the bank's story IS: You only get access to the toilet, and if you'd be able to get out of that toilet, you wouldn't get access to anything...
R.E.Wolff@...
Aug 30, 2001 10:49 pm
* Dave Mitchell ... In the recent case the looking-around was made more problematic IMHO because the person took some photocopies of the papers on the table in...
Ralf Fassel
ralf@...
Aug 30, 2001 4:29 pm
... Correct, but what was of equal significance, we felt, was the apparent truth that the application of statutes which are grounded in ancient real property ...
larryo@...
Sep 3, 2001 9:05 pm
(I'm not a lawyer.) ] Sysadmins do things every day that, if their employer decides at a later ] time any one of which was "unauthorized," subject them to...
David Keegel
djk@...
Sep 4, 2001 12:20 am
... David> In that case, if you could show that you didn't realise at the time David> that the act was "without authorization" (because you had implicit David>...
merlyn@...
Sep 4, 2001 12:36 am
... One of the "problems" with your trial is that you should've said "NO" to the question: "Was this for personal gain?" . The way you answered that question...
R.E.Wolff@...
Sep 4, 2001 5:35 pm
... R> One of the "problems" with your trial is that you should've said "NO" R> to the question: "Was this for personal gain?" . R> The way you answered that...
merlyn@...
Sep 4, 2001 6:03 pm
... That you could, if it were not for ORS 161.115(1), which provides in part: (1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Send Email