-
-
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@isc2 Not proposing it as advice. Sheesh people. It is a discussion about the legal boundaries.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bsdunlap@ISC2 DESTROY being the equivalent of a police officer firing a gun at a person. Does it happen? Yes. Should it?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brasscount
@brasscount@bsdunlap@ISC2 This certainly comes off as a call for establishing ad hoc rules that ignore current laws.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bsdunlap@ISC2 So instead maybe a little more time spent identifying this as a call to define the terms for the real argument2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brasscount
@brasscount@bsdunlap For real fun? Identify the countries that would *allow* this by their current laws!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bsdunlap Belize, and Guatemala, anyone? John McAfee says they're very nice...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brasscount
@brasscount@bsdunlap Ship in ocean w/ satellite uplink? Law where ISP is matter if person out of jurisdiction?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bsdunlap Jurisdiction does matter. But its the same argument we had in the 90's about jurisdiction for prosecuting net fraud.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@brasscount @bsdunlap Different argument. 90's was ISP vs loc of hacker, but not in context of 'International waters'.
-
-
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bsdunlap Principality of Sealand?0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.