Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Must computer systems be an armed camp?
Message-ID: <229@looking.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 00:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.229
Posted: Thu Dec 13 00:00:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 05:06:49 EST
References: <817@bnl.UUCP>
Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont
Lines: 22

While it's true that proper security is the only "secure" solution to
computer break-ins, can we take proposals that the laws should not
be there seriously?  Translate them to other forms of property..

"Laws against theft attack the symptom, not the problem.  What are truly
necessary are bolted doors, security patrols, guard dogs, and fully
authenticated access procedures.   Anybody who protects their house with
something as easily breakable as glass is ASKING to be broken into.
Anybody who leaves their door unlocked might as well give their property away."

Yet this is the sort of attitude I see posted to the net.  When I grew up
we never locked our house or car unless away for a long period like
a vacation.   There was a much more common attitude back then that it was
WRONG to invade other people's property whether it was easy or not.  If you
find a wallet with I.D. on the ground do you take the money just because
it's easy?

Now children are a different story.  They are immature and don't understand
this morality properly, so perhaps different conditions should apply to
them.  But the principles I have described above still apply fully to adults.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473