On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:53:48 -0500 Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:45:44AM -0500, Troy.A Johnson wrote: > > Making the tools "illegal" robs me, not a criminal intent on using > > them. If he already plans to attack my computers illegally, I don't > > think acquiring or constructing an "illegal" tool to do so will make > > him "think twice". > > Exactly. The type of argument Sam is presenting sounds wonderful to > people like politicians. Regulate the tool and crime cannot be > committed. This is exactly the type of mentality that the RIAA has > against P2P filesharing applications. It's exactly the mentality that > has plagued the decss cases. Possession of a tool does not make a > criminal act. Application of a tool in an illegal manner does. > > Let's keep that distinction clear and free of morality agendas. > One aspect of having tools that attempt to break into a system, from an administrator's standpoint IMO, is to check the validity and security of your measures to prevent such things. If used against your own machines, or in a hired manner to search for vulnerabilities of a client so they can correct them is a good thing. Not a criminal intent. Theory and simulated theory and practice is good, but the real test comes from application. IMO of course. -- Shawn The difficult we do today; the impossible take a little longer. Ne Obliviscaris -- "Forget Not" _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list