🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Aug28.1...@athena.mit.edu> j...@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>In article <1990Aug28.1...@ctr.columbia.edu>, mo...@ctr.columbia.edu (Robert Mokry) writes:
>  Remember "innocent until proven guilty?"  If the defense states that the
>access to the machine was unintentional, and it is necessary for the access to
>have been intentional in order for a crime to have been committed, then it is
>up to the prosecution to prove that the access was intentional.

Simple proof: The prosecutor points to the witness box where a nerdy
boy is sitting and says, "This thing is a hacker, and he has a
computer, and his computer dialed up another computer, and we all know
computers don't make mistakes."

The prosecutor doesn't need to make any strictly logical sense; he or she 
must just convince the judge or jury.

>|> >3)  Connecting to the wrong node was a genuine mistake,
>|> >    which you corrected by typing ^D.
>|> 
>|> What sort of statement is ^D?  Try explaining that to the judge.
>
>  This is a red herring.  If the judge is incapable of understanding the
>relatively simple principles involved ("There is a standard character which is
>used to signal to the other end of a remote connection that you wish to
>disconnect from that connection.  The defendant typed that character as soon
>as he realized that he had connected to the wrong machine, and his connection
>was ended.")

Is it really a standard character?  It may be standard in Unix, but what
about other systems?  Why not use ^C?  What if a login program on a
non-Unix computer gets confused and crashes when it gets ^D, letting the
person on the system?  And what if the person knows that this is the case?