RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
...
> 
> Couldn't some "conspiracy to hack" charges be brought.  They are
> planning as a group and organization ways to access and interfere with
> the operation of a computer system without authorization of the owner,
> or operator of that system.  If I we running a
> "www.lets-hack-the-snot-out-of-RIAA-member-computers.org" and openly
> discussing the ways in which we would interfere with those companies I
> would certainly expect a visit from the FBI.  Even if the project were
> -- "www.ways-to-get-even.org" which organized and planned hacking
> against persons as an alternative to small claims court... 
> this would be
> equally "legally challenged."
> 
> Here is the RIAA, looking to use unauthorized use attacks on persons
> against which they may have a legal course of action.  They are
> discussing and declaring their plans to do so publically, yet no FBI
> door knock is found.  Until (and unless) a court finds that this
> individual has in fact infringed, or are able to obtain a restraining
> order in court, they have no rights to take vigalante action against
> these individuals, or access their systems without authorization.
> 
> Aren't they conspiring to criminal action?

No.  Talk is cheap.  You can _talk_ about it all you want.  It
only becomes criminal once you _act_ on it.

If they ever do hack into anyone's site and delete content, or
perhaps launch a DOS attack ... THEN all of their public statements
can and should be used against them in court.  Until then, it's just 
a lot of hot air, and we still have freedom of speech here.



-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!