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