[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.
[/ QUOTE ]
pvn-
You accidentally intercept a message that clearly expresses the writer's plan to break in to someone's house tomorrow, kill the residents, and steal their goods. Assuming this message to be genuine, has this person already committed a sufficient display of aggression to be apprehended, or must we wait until tomorrow when he and his compadres show up with guns?
[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22...ops_ask_f.html
It does seem to me that it would be irresponsible *not* to alert the supposed target. And if the message were sent *to* the target, it most certainly *would* be an aggressive threat.
But what if you intercept the message, examine the address of the message-sender's target, and discover that it's a non-existent address in a fictional town, but you know (magically) that the message sender *believes* that it is a real address in a real town and he believes there will be much loot there to plunder? Who has he caused damages to?
Now, if you find the message, discover it *is* targeting a real person, and you *do* inform that person, it seems likely that the target may feel aggressively threatened. Whether that's enough to cause damages or not, I'm not sure.
Of course, this is quite different than the cases the OP is examining, since in those cases the "target" is positively receptive to the "attack" - *and* the target has the ability to consent to such action *even though* the "attacker" may not be aware of that ability.