netiquette & zone transfers

[Kevin Darcy]

Jeremy Nelson wrote:

> Barry Margolin  <barmar at bbnplanet.com> wrote:
> >Why does there have to be?  You don't have to have a "no trespassing" sign
> >on your lawn to prohibit trespassers.
>
> *referee whistle*  Your analogy just broke down.  In many parts of the USA,
> you most certainly *do* have to have a "no tresspassing" sign to prohibit
> tresspassers, since in many/most states by definition it is not possible
> to be guilty of tresspassing unless you disregard a "no tresspassing" sign [1]
> posted in a place where it would be seen by would-be "tresspassers".

Well, okay, how about a replacement analogy: just because I leave the keys in my
ignition doesn't mean you may legally drive off with my car. Agreed?

> Thank goodness the real world isn't yet like the computer world, a kind
> of hyper-paranoid quasi-police state where every possible act we do is
> illegal unless we can produce written notorized documentation that we had
> prior permission to do it.  The right to roam thankfully still exists,
> though it is under attack.

The right to roam? The right to *snoop*, don't you mean? I can certainly
appreciate the value of "roaming" in the real world, but zone file contents very
rarely have aesthetic value; they are almost invariably super-functional,
intended only to facilitate access to computer systems. Or, do you think the
public also has a "right to roam" on any system on any network they choose? If
so, then I -- not to mention federal laws -- disagree.


- Kevin