🚀 go-pugleaf

jon@vector0 (A Product of Society) wrote:
>
>:California Penal Code S [Section] 502:
>:::Computer data access fraud; legislative findings; definitions...
>
>...any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a
>public offense:
>
>  .... knowingly ... blablabla .... knowingly .... blablabla .... knowingly ..
>  .. blablabla .... knowingly  ....    etc.

.. after which ralphs@halcyon.UUCP stated:
:The system does work.

No, it does not, and it will never work, unless the system is far more advanced
than this. It strikes me that nobody mentioned this aspect so far, but what 
about the responsibilities of the system administrators? I'm not familiar with
details of US law, but where I live, if an owner of a jewellers shop leaves
at the end of the day without locking his safe, without switching on his
alarmsystem, or without even closing the door of his shop, anybody walking
into the shop and taking something away will still be guilty, but the owner
might be punished even harder than the thief for provoking the theft!

What I'm trying to point out is that a legal system which seeks to protect
the interests of persons/organisations just by saying: 'if someone tries to
damage such interest, he will be punished', without enforcing the persons/
organisations to do what they can to prevent any damage, they simply won't do 
so, which leaves them very very vulnerable.

______________________________________________________________________________
Raymond X.T. Nijssen  / Don't speak if you  / Oh VMS, please forgive me all
ray...@ele.tue.nl   / speak for yourself  / unfriendly things I said about you