Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc

To: <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
From: "David Knaack" <dknaack@geocities.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:02:18 -0600
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

From: Firepower5@aol.com <Firepower5@aol.com>
>dknaack@geocities.com writes:
>
>> Question 1.
>Unfortunately, yes.  I think that if it is on the co.'s property, it's
theirs.

Agreement, although 'property' was probably the wrong word
to use, I should have asked if it was their responsibility, and
therefore inspectable by them. Same deal.

>>  Question 2a.
>No, for example I don't believe my e-mails are inspectable by any server
they
>go through.

No? even if you sent them clear text across a public network?
In question 1 you said that data stored on a companys computer
is inspectable by that company, this would include data stored
in its memory, not just on the harddrive.

>>  Question 2b.
>No.  See above.

I tend to agree, however I don't think that the law would necessarily,
so I would be inclined to use high strength encryption for anything
sensitive.

>>  Question 2c.
>Yes, mainly because of terrorists, crackers, and other wackos.
>Note:  I don't believe you are any of the above.

So what should be penalty for refusal to decrypt be?

>>  Question 3.
>Yes, assuming they have a search warrant.  To me it is the same as
rummaging
>through a file cabinet for records of illegal transactions.

Yep, I agree, what about information pertaining to totally
unrelated criminal activity that they might find on such
a search?  No doubt falls under the same search rules
as a search warrent, where you can be charged for
anything illegal, wether it had anything to do with the
orginal crime that was the reason for the search or not.

>>  Question 4.
>No.  There is information on the internet and such about how to create an
>anthrax bomb, etc.  If they store it somewhere where it's under the AUP
it's
>OK with me.

AUP?
I agree, posession of information does not constitute intent
to cause damage to persons or property, however, information
such as child pornography is different, it is evidence of a crime
already commited, should it be illegal to posess too?  For what
reason?

>
>>  Question 5.
>Hard to say.  For some people it is OK, but there are lots of wackos.

I'd say no, again, possesion does not constitute intent to
harm (unless of course there is evidence of that intent,
in which case one could possably be tried for intent
to cause damage).

>
>>  Question 6.
>No.  It shouldn't be illegal, unless it causes harm to others/others'
>property, in which case you go to jail.

I agree, goes along with federal law about explosives.

DK