Article:		Use P2P, Go to Jail. Any Questions?
Subject:		what this article fails to point out
Date:		2001-07-11 09:01:22
From:		phule
What this article fails to point out is this: If David did not have permission to install the client on the states computers, then every single point mentioned above is moot. If David violated the Accepable Usage policy of the state by installing the clients, the state has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to go after him under criminal prosecution. I think it shows extreme bias that the author of this article failed to mention this. What if David had set up something else on these computers, instead of the dnet client? What if he was running kiddie pr0n servers, or what if he set up all the machines to run DDOS attacks? Would there be this much support for him? No, of course not. But the fact remains: abuse is abuse is abuse under the law.

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• Re: what this article fails to point out
  2001-12-22 00:42:32  ncdave [View]
  
  
  Phule wrote:
  
  > If David violated the Accepable Usage policy of
  > the state by installing the clients, the state
  > has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to go after him under
  > criminal prosecution.
  
  That is not true. The DeKalb Tech AUP is not a criminal statute. The State only has the right to prosecute him criminally if he violated the law. That he did not do.
  
  If you annoy your manager, you can expect to be scolded or fired. If you knowingly violate your employer's policies then you DESERVE to be fired. But criminal prosecution should be reserved for... criminals. And criminals are people who violate criminal statutes.
  
  > But the fact remains: abuse is abuse is abuse
  > under the law.
  
  No, it isn't. "Abuse" is not defined in law, and is nor criminally prosecutable. CRIMES are what are defined under the law, and a careful reading of the statute plainly shows that McOwen is not guilty of the crimes with which he has been charged.
  
  -Dave

• what this article fails to point out
  2001-07-12 10:16:59  patree [View]
  
  
  agree with “What this article fails to point out is this” Please comment, but if David is the system administrator of the system, this implies that David has management responsibilities for the system. This also means that by that authority that has been granted by his position, he has rights to install and alter systems. He cannot be assumed to have committed the crime though deceit unless there is a policy that David has violated though the university change control system. Does this university have some stringent change control system or some policies about the systems written down that he has violated for his position at the university. Please someone fill in the blanks.