full-disclosure - complaints about the governemnt spying!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1135887231.3318.55.camel@shadrack>
Date: Thu Dec 29 20:14:00 2005
From: leife at dls.net (Leif Ericksen)
Subject: complaints about the governemnt spying!

It comes back to ignorance of the law is no excuse.

So depending on the Lawyers, and the judges and possible jury you are
either boned or get a slight slap and are told do not do it again!

--
Lhe
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 14:14 -0500, bkfsec wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:04:43 CST, Leif Ericksen said:
> >  
> >
> >>There are those laws that are direct and clear cut, and there are the
> >>ones that takes an act of congress to decide what is legal or not.  ;)
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >And then there are those you're not allowed to even *see*.  In Gilmore v. Ashcroft,
> >the Department of Justice finally consented to allow a *judge* with a security
> >clearance to see the text of the law, but Gilmore and his attorneys are still
> >denied access to what the law says.
> >  
> >
> 
> Which begs the question... How do you break a law that you don't know 
> exists?
> 
> How can one be expected not to break the law if the law is never made 
> available?
> 
>                    -bkfsec
> 
> 
-- 
Leif Ericksen <leife@....net>