"If this is upheld I will nolonger be able to go to the US because I do not know every law in the US and there may be things that I do that are legal or even required where I live that are illegal in the US... "
I hate to tell you, but everyone who goes into any country is subject to their laws. It is the responsibility of the visitor to research the area he is visiting. This is basic travel planning.
Fortunately the rest of the country doesn't have the hippie-esque attitude of you "slashdotters", and would laugh at the ridiculous and intellectually insulting analogies made in this article.
Ok, politics aside, how can you possibly compare Ralph Nader doing safety tests with someone who sends out instructions on how to hack into a system? A more accurate analogy would be to compare him to someone who figures out the best way to break into a bank, the combination to the vault, and makes this info available to anyone. That individual would be an accesory to any crime committed on that bank using his information, so this guy is guilty of the same. I think you watched "Anti-trust" a little too hard.
Slashdot Mirror
"If this is upheld I will nolonger be able to go to the US because I do not know every law in the US and there may be things that I do that are legal or even required where I live that are illegal in the US... " I hate to tell you, but everyone who goes into any country is subject to their laws. It is the responsibility of the visitor to research the area he is visiting. This is basic travel planning.
Fortunately the rest of the country doesn't have the hippie-esque attitude of you "slashdotters", and would laugh at the ridiculous and intellectually insulting analogies made in this article.
Ok, politics aside, how can you possibly compare Ralph Nader doing safety tests with someone who sends out instructions on how to hack into a system? A more accurate analogy would be to compare him to someone who figures out the best way to break into a bank, the combination to the vault, and makes this info available to anyone. That individual would be an accesory to any crime committed on that bank using his information, so this guy is guilty of the same. I think you watched "Anti-trust" a little too hard.