RE: Secure 2.4.x kernel
While I understand your theory, reality is that laws only provide a framework for punishment. If their existence in fact did not "allow" something, such as murder, murder would therefore not happen. Murder does in fact happen, just like trespass, yet is not "ok". If, as you say, people were not allowed to break the law, there would be no traffic tickets since such violations would not have been allowed to happen.
Your conclusion that I believe an action is "ok" merely because it is capable of happening is in error. What I said was that laws do not prevent action, I said nothing about specific actions being "ok" or "not ok".
I will gladly continue this debate offline if you wish, I have a great store of source material for the non-initiation of force philosophy which you might find interesting.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary MacDougall [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:47
> To: Howland, Curtis; Ralf Dreibrodt
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Secure 2.4.x kernel
> Actually your point of view basically states that its "ok"
> for anyone to
> In the US, we have laws against such activity. People are
> *not* allowed to
> the law, regardless of how stupid the victim is.
> Law's were created to protect. Regardless of the type of
> crime or injustice.
> Just because people are "dumb" or not as fortunate as other
> more "privy"
> doesn't mean that the law should bypass the "unfortunate".
> The law (at
> least in the US) were
> specifically created to protect people in such circumstances.
> Why should
> law be any different?
> I see you point, do you see mine?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howland, Curtis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Ralf Dreibrodt" <email@example.com>; "Gary MacDougall"
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 7:03 PM
> Subject: RE: Secure 2.4.x kernel
> A major point concerning "laws" is that they prevent nothing.
> Laws against
> murder have been around since the idea of "laws" was
> invented, yet murder
> still happens. Sometimes in new and spectacular ways.
> Individual security, be it physical or logical, must be considered an
> individual responsibility. Each server, each PC, each system
> must have its
> own security addressed not in a standard "legislated"
> pattern, but with the
> unique attributes of that specific system in mind.
> At the very least, turning off all "services" that are not
> specifically and
> deliberately turned on is the first step.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralf Dreibrodt [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 23:07
> > To: Gary MacDougall
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: Secure 2.4.x kernel
> > Hi,
> > Gary MacDougall wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmmm... Mom has a good point.
> > >
> > > I think the bottom line is that we'll never have 100%
> security until
> > > there are laws that protect the break-in's and hacking
> that occurs.
> > > Still laws... not crappy little wrist slapping type laws.
> > laws can´t do anything against unknown people.
> > i think there is no way to find a hacker if he really doesn´
> > t want to.
> > btw, with that argumentation you are saying "come on, delete alle
> > securitymailinglists and let us ask for better laws, don´t
> close your
> > windows, when you are leaving your home , don´t close the doors".
> > and that´s the totally wrong way (at least today).
> > bye
> > Ralf
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact