Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
From: Firepower5@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:42:11 EST
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

In a message dated 12/17/98 11:04:04 PM Central Standard Time,
dknaack@geocities.com writes:

> >>  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.
This is a tough one to put in words.  If you are an employee of a company,
they can monitor your e-mail.  However, say my e-mail goes through an AOL
server, then some other servers, then through the geocities server.  I don't
think that any of these people have the right to monitor my e-mail.  Only
exception I can see is for moderated lists, etc.  In which case the list
server can monitor the mail.  However, certain free e-mail providers (Excite,
Geocities, Yahoo, etc) may claim the right to monitor out-bound e-mails to see
they are not violating their rules.

>  >>  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?
Well, I don't think there is too much encryption out there the FBI can't crack
themselves (and I am sure there is nothing the NSA can't crack, so if it is
some guy cracking in to government computers and stuff, then the NSA can
figure it out.)  If for some reason they cannot/will not decrypt the data,
send them to jail, if it is something that is important they will be in jail
anyway, if it is unimportant, they will decrypt it.  For cases that deal with
dangerous stuff (mobsters, drug cartels, spy rings) offer the Witness
Protection Program.

>  >>  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.
I think that it should have same conditions as a normal search warrant.

>  >>  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?
AUP = Acceptable Use Policy.  If it is the policy of the server to allow
porno, I don't care about it.  However, using Geocities or whatever for a
porno website is different.

>  >>  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).
What's the crime called if someone finds out you are planning on killing
someone?