"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 14-Sep-08 16:50, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...

> > Good for him. I'd call the cops too. What's it his business entering my
> > property? "I was walking by" doesn't make sense either. Nobody walking
by
> > "accidentally" climbs a tree. And if he was really concerned for my
safety,
> > why not come point out to me the branch *without* violating the law?

> 1) if the branch is weak enough there is no danger, so no need to call
> 2) as you failed to notice, I never said he entered the property. You
> (and my fictional character) assume that he did, just as the assumption
> in our case here is that the student was doing something malicious. (yes
> I come to that later)

But he did hack into the system and retrieve the passwords. If he didn't
enter the property, your analogy doesn't compute. If he did, then he did
violate the property rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

> >> Not necessary, the guy in question apparently had no criminal
intentions

> > What do you call breaking the law?

> The student had apparently no intention to cause harm to the system or

So if I go over the speed limit but have no intention to get into an
accident, I can expect to avoid a ticket?

> gain himself or anybody else anything by the act. The only reason you
> may call him a criminal is that there is a law there that should have
> been different.

You can argue that the law is unfair (it would be a bad argument, granted,
but laws are of course not set in stone). But so long as it's there, it's by
definition, a crime to break it.

> As a student you may excuse him for not yet knowing that
> some laws don't make sense and can be used in perverse ways.

Ignorance of the law is (almost always) unacceptable as a defense. Too much
room for abuse.

> Aside: I don't know about your place, but here we consider somebody
> innocent until proven to have broken the law.

True, but I'm not the judge or the jury, nor are we sentencing him here. I
can express my opinion based on what I have read so far.

> BTW I consider this discussion closed as far as I am concerned. I feel
> very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of
> 'x### [at] ycom'.

That's an ad hominem. Somebody (else) might claim he doesn't feel
comfortable with people with hotmail accounts. Nonetheless, be it so.

Post a reply to this message