Re: Usenet allowed from work?



In article <f888ob$q3k$1@xxxxxxxx>, Chilly8 <chilly8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.

That's like saying that if your front door lock is pickable by
the properly shaped jimmy, that unlocking it is not a crime.

Have another look at my prior posting today. USC 18 1030(a).
Exceeding authorized access is a US Criminal Offence. "Authorized
access" is defined by the company published security policy, not
by which technical measures can be sidestepped.

Indeed, as long as there were -some- elementary security elements in
place (so that the systems do not fall under the public-place kiosk
exemption), then the published security policy is *all* that is
required, and even if there are -no- technical counter-measures at all,
exceeding one's authorized access would be a USC 18 1030 violation.
Technology does not define authorization: policy does.
.