There is no "mandatory" life sentence. I quote from the DoJ analysis: "This section affects only the maximum penalty allowed by statute. It does not limit the authority of the Sentencing Commission and the courts to tailor the sentences imposed in particular cases to offense and offender characteristics." As for the concern over the definition of "intent": first of all, where in the bill, specifically, do you find fault with the use of that term? Also, it seems to me that any intent would have to be proven, as always in our courts, beyond a reasonable doubt. And it would be up to the prosecution to prove that intent, not up to the accused to disprove it. I don't see how this ties anyone's hands except for the prosecuting entity who will be expected to provide the proof of intent. How is this different from any other charge of conspiracy to commit any crime? I don't see anything in the Bill outlawing possession of penetration tools. I may have missed it, please point to the section for me if I have. I only see provisions covering sharing, offering or consulting in the use of these tools to terrorist organizations. I do see where someone may get into pretty deep trouble advising or assisting certain individuals or organizations known to promote terrorist activities. This puts a fairly heavy burden upon the pen tester to do some up front research on the authenticity of his/her clients. Should we try and shirk this responsiblity to lighten our load? Mike -----Original Message----- From: Keith.Morgan [mailto:Keith.Morganat_private] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:49 PM To: 'T. Barrick' Cc: 'pen-testat_private' Subject: RE: New laws in the wings Reading that article to the letter, and assuming no provision for intent, this would make almost every security professional, and possibly most IT professionals accessories to terrorists by default. We are asking our representative for a full copy of the legislation for review by our attorneys. If there is no mention of intent in the legislation, a federal judge's hands would be tied. He would be forced to hand down a life sentance regardless of the absurdity of the situation. I'll post our conclusions upon reading the bill in it's entirety. Keith T. Morgan Chief of Information Security Terradon Communications keith.morganat_private 304-755-8291 x142 > -----Original Message----- > From: T. Barrick [mailto:tbarrickat_private] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:02 AM > To: pen-test > Subject: New laws in the wings > > > I would advise everyone to read and UNDERSTAND (Hint: use your > imagination) the ramifications of this proposed law... > > See the article at : http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257 > > Toby > -- > Toby Barrick > American Express > Security Operations > Ecommerce Security Specialist > +1 602.766.3444 - work > +1 480.496.6507 - home > Toby.Barrickat_private > tbarrickat_private > > ICQ - 121647688 > MSN - tbarrick2001 > AIM - tbarrick2001 > Yahoo - tbarrick2001 > ...others just ask... > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security > Intelligence Alert (SIA) > Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which > automatically alerts you to the latest security > vulnerabilities please see: > https://alerts.securityfocus.com/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA) Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: https://alerts.securityfocus.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA) Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 27 2001 - 13:18:19 PDT