Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution

• Subject: Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
• From: markm@bogart.cse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
• Date: 11 Sep 1995 20:20:10 GMT
• Newsgroups: comp.security.unix, comp.security.misc, misc.legal.computing
• Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI), Portland, Oregon
• References: <42sh2o$erb@shell1.best.com> <vin-1009951724400001@slip-3-22.shore.net> <430prt$nn9@cs6400.mcc.ac.uk>
• Xref: newsstand.cit.cornell.edu comp.security.unix:19975 comp.security.misc:21692 misc.legal.computing:17058

In article <430prt$nn9@cs6400.mcc.ac.uk>,
Geoff Lane <zzassgl@cs6400.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Isn't the whole argument here about what a security consultant is
>implicity "authorised" to do in order to complete the job.

which 'here'.  If you mean in Randal Schwartz' case, he wasn't
a security consultant.  He was writing PERL code for DNS
when all this took place.

--mark

• Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
• From: cereba@europa.com (William S. Lovell)

• Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
• From: jeffrey@best.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
• Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
• From: vin@shore.net (Vin McLellan)
• Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
• From: zzassgl@cs6400.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)

• Prev: From the clp.announce moderator: I'm back
• Next: Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
• Index: Mail Index
• Thread: Mail Thread Index