] On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Keegel wrote:
]
] > getting legislators to focus more on intent (eg: requiring clear
] > mal-intent for computer crime offenses) seems a realistic goal.
]
] 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 in" to a computer shows sufficient "mal-intent" all by itself.
] "After all", they'll say, "if you broke into my _home_, we wouldn't need
] to show that you had evil intentions."
]
] So, this has convinced me (and surely just about everyone on this list)
] that we should look at the intent as well as the deed. But what can we say
] to convince all of those other folks that the intent of West (Schwartz,
] Sklyarov, you, me) was benign? Or not merely benign, but (in several
] cases) with a helpful intent?

I am trying to turn this around a little, and instead put the burden
of proof on the prosecutors to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that
the accused had some kind of criminal intent (or bad intent, whatever).

If you believe in "innocent until proven guilty", then the onus should
be on the prosecutors, not the defense, to prove intent.

If legislators believe that the criminals they are trying to catch with
these laws do have bad intent and that it could mostly be proved, then
getting them to add this to the law may not be so difficult. To them
it might seem as innocuous as adding the qualification "knowingly".

__________________________________________________________________________
David Keegel <djk@...> URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management