[kemasa @
ghost .
hac .
com (Kemasa) writes:]
|Quite true, but listen closely to what you are saying.
You need to read BOTH paragraphs I wrote...
|sites should take action against them if possible. For you to say
|that should things should be expected (true) and that there is
|nothing you can do about it so it should not bother you when someone
|does it is actually part of the problem. You accept it. You tolerate
|it.
Really? Strange, I never wrote any of what you just interpreted. For
instance, why did I write this then?:
+With that said, I also will follow-up attempts to get into my firewall from
+the outside, and have mailed a number of "desist" messages to users and
+their administrators.
|So, if someone tries your locks you should do nothing unless they cause
|some damage?
I think you didn't read what I wrote.
| I never said that you should do nothing, because the sad
|fact is that you have to, but I did say that people should not view
|this as acceptable. Anarchy is not the way to live.
Anarchy is what you have to assume, though. To assume that there is anyone
else protecting your interests is similar to the security through obscurity
fallacy.
My purpose in stating what I did was to point out the uselessness of the
discussion. None of us are going to react well if someone is trying to break
into our system, of that I am pretty sure. However, expecting there to be
some authority to enforce our ideas of what is right is simply not realistic,
though.
Randy Davis Email: randy @
megatek .
com
Corporate Network and System Administrator megatek!randy @
uunet .
uu .
net
Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California ucsd!megatek!randy
|
|
