[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
In article <427l27$isl@shell1.best.com>,
Jeffrey Kegler <jeffrey@best.com> wrote:
>In article <DE8n9H.AM0@uns.bris.ac.uk>, Paul Smee <P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>>And, most things you do for your boss don't (or shouldn't) look like
>>illegal activities - unless you've got a seriously weird job.
>
>By this definition, Internet security is necessarily a "seriously
>wierd job".
well, no. it's not illegal if you get your management to give
you written authorization to perform these activities. The
authorization can be vague enough to cover most eventualities.
At least all the authorizations that I have been give were
written this way. btw, I never had any problems getting this
type of permission from my management and this includes the
same group where Randal was working when all this started.
>This is a serious problem for our profession in the
>Oregon v. Schwartz case. The only safe way to be sure you are
>legal is to avoid any appearance of illegality. And the only way
>to do that is to avoid doing security audits, that is, to not do
>one's job.
no, you can do it with the knowledge and permission of management.
That's not so hard, is it?
>This case should be very encouraging to the real criminals.
>It means a lot fewer people will be trying to find or even
>stop them.
I don't think that it will stop real security professionals.
--mark
Follow-Ups:
References: