[CrackMonkey] [gkm@petting-zoo.net: Microsoft Internet Explorer]

[Jay Sulzberger]

This concern over the supposed "illegality" of "Leetz 0wnIng n0n-3113Tz"
is dealt with in a recent decision:

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-03797.PDF

There are several very fine rulings in this decision.  If the 1331 intends
to keep owning the non-L33T, that is, the owning is not a temporary
owning, why then according to the federal law against cracking there is no
offense.  The law was carefully crafted so that only interference with
temporary storage of transient data is considered a legal offense.  The
application to the Doubleclick invasion of privacy class action suit is to
allow the judge to state that since Doubleclick intends to own end users
without time limit, why there is no offense whatsoever.

The judge also rules that a publically traded company cannot be guilty of
tortious intent, as long as the SEC has read of the company's intention
to commit the tort in a public filing.  The judge does not rule on
whether a non-public filing of intent to commit a tort would suffice.

In a Law State it is sometimes important before the next turn of the
dialectic, that the Conspiracy be actually declared not only lawful, but
necessary, ordinary, and indeed, almost unthinkable, because the
Conspiracy is the very ground of Advertising and STOCK MARKET BOOBLING.

oo--JS.