>It will be interesting to see whether everyone supplying dialup SLIP access
>will also be vulnerable to charges of "harboring hackers" because they don't
>police the content of packets.
Not a lawyer (maybe that should be a .sig) but would suspect that a provider
that had been warned several times of "improper" activity from certain
accounts would be in an entirly different position than one that had received
If there is a trained solicitor out there, I would suspect that there is
some precident for the presumption that an activity was known to exist and
therefore encouraged by the owner/provider. Isn't that how "crack houses" are
seized ? What is the "reasonable man" test ?
(did use to read "You Be The Judge" in _Reader's Digest_ quite often 8*).