Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Mike Denka (mdenkwhidbey.net)
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 19:15:10 CDT
Keep in mind that, as far as I can see, this discussion hinges around
section 306 of the ATA. 99 percent of the ATA seems to concern itself
primarily with processes used to gather evidence, what evidence is or is not
permissable in court, and maximum penalties allowed for terrorist
activities. That said, concerning section 306, your concern is well taken.
But I'm not sure that the changes to existing law as outlined in this
section deviate sufficiently from current statutes to make the case that
public information sharing will suddenly be taken as providing services
"knowing or intending that [those] services or [that] assistance is to be
used in preparing for or carrying out terrorism crimes." Existing law
already states that providing "material support or resources" to terrorists
is prohibited. It seems to me that existing law could already apply to
sharing of information in public forums if the courts wanted to use it that
way. However, if anyone believes that use of the word "intending" here
suggests a new zeal in our government's desire to suffocate free speech and
information sharing, let's be specific about the portion of the bill to
which we object. Wouldn't it be more prudent to argue points of the bill
that may be troublesome rather than to attempt to muster up blanket
opposition to a bill when only a very small portion of it may be
>> As for the concern over the definition of "intent": first of
>> all, where in
>> the bill, specifically, do you find fault with the use of
>> that term? Also,
>> it seems to me that any intent would have to be proven, as
>> always in our
>> courts, beyond a reasonable doubt.
>And with the example above, when you reply to the list, why do you do it?
To share your knowledge
>or your insight. To help everyone. That is intent. To share your knowledge
of breaking into
>systems - here, or Bugtraq. Before you reply to someone's question, either
on *or off* the list,
>do you perform "some up front research on the authenticity" of the person
you are replying to?
>What about where you go to get your tools? Was there any screening done
there before you were
>granted access to them? I doubt a statement like, "Use at your own risk."
Or, "Proof of concept
>only." comments in the header section of some source will mean much in the
>I would guess that many people here are like myself and rely upon the free
sharing of information
>in order to do their daily jobs, be it securing systems or otherwise. I
have trouble looking at
>the ATA and thinking that the tools and other things we take for granted
will not be impacted by
>this. I hope they're not, but the far-reaching implications of the ATA seem
to overbear what I
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA)
Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: