On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:15:41 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:


>> 
>> I agree with "somebody".
>> Wrong is wrong, illegal is illegal no mater the intentions. As others have said
>> there are other ways to let people know if there is a security leak. Also
>> further education should not only teach technical subjects but some
>> understanding of morals as well. I think that some of the differences in answers
>> has to do with age and experience. Younger people often think that if they mean
>> no harm then they are doing no wrong. 
>
>And partly by cultural background. As a true Dutchman I am horrified by 
>laws passed on good intentions and 'ethics'. You should pass laws that 
>solve problems (preferably after identifying what the real problem is), 
>not ones that are counterproductive.
>

We have a saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

>Possibly the dividing line in this discussion is that on the one hand 
>people argue that it is forbidden and others who argue that that law 
>simply should not have existed in that way.
>
>> It is also up to the authorities what any punishment is due. Whether it is light
>> or heavy.
>
>The case is in Canada so there may be some hope that the judgment is by 
>authorities based on facts. I don't know the details of the Canadian system.

If it is based on facts then he is "guilty as charged" If it is based on
intentions then the spirit of the law can be taken into account.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message