Land of the Free

Shinji

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html

If the terrorists set out to destroy the basis on which the USA is built, it looks like they may well have succeeded. Of course, they couldn't have done it without the help of the politicians...

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html

If the terrorists set out to destroy the basis on which the USA is built, it looks like they may well have succeeded. Of course, they couldn't have done it without the help of the politicians...

I think you can take an alternate slant on this.

Bush wants hacking to be classifiable as a terrorist offence, so that should it be used in a manner deemed to be terrorism, then it can be dealt with in that way.

He does not say that all hacking will be considered terrorist activity.

its kinda like the notion that carrying a gun in the US can be :

1) perfectly legal, or
2) carrying a concealed weapon, or
3) carrying with intent to use, and so on...

I wouldnt say for sure that hacking will automatically become a terrorist offence, but I can see the logic behind being able to classify it as such, should the need arise.

I dont think this would destroy the basis that the US was built on, unless you are protecting the rights of people to vandalise the property of others, which is effectively what any form of illegal hacking is.

jc

Shinji

Actually it's mostly the right to detain people for as long as they like with no reason and no judicial review possible that I'm concerned about... The hacking thing IS worrying though, given how open ended previous legislation like the DMCA has been.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Yes, and that's because of a lovely little bit of text called the Constitution and its Amendments. Procus en legere is a principle we hold dear in US Constitutional law; I seriously doubt that any "proposals" or Bills that the Bush administration wants to force down through the House or Senate Judicial comittees can make it through in one piece, if at all. This is why I'm so glad I come from a nation that actually has a written Constitution, and a system of supreme judicial review of every law. If a law in itself prohibits judicial review by the supreme court, then it is by definition, illegal. With of course, the notable exception of the Intelligence Oversight comittee...but even they are subject to judicial review if a simple majority of the Senate can be achieved, or a 2/3 majority of the sitting members of that comittee.

So I don't see what all the fuss is- we're counting our chickens before they've been fertilized, never mind hatched. There's a long arduous road ahead for any law as fascist as that one- a road that will end in failure as long as any of the laws' litigative functions impinge on basic rights clearly declaimed in the Constitution.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Yes, and that's because of a lovely little bit of text called the Constitution and its Amendments. Procus en legere is a principle we hold dear in US Constitutional law

I know its a different kettle of fish, but wasnt there a lot of criticism about the DMCA given that it effectively infringes on the constitutional right to free speech, as interpreted by supreme court decisions in the past to include the written word?

While I'm open to correction, I do not see the whole Constitution and Amendments as a safe-guard here. To my uneducated eye, they have been ridden rough-shod over by the DMCA, which is being upheld because its good for business. Call me a cynic, but this latest focus of government is likely to prove equally disdainful of the law.

All that needs to be done is to put in a rider, much like the oversight comittee on, which effectively means that a judicial review could happen, but realistically wont.

Maybe I'm being overly critical. The US Constitution, by and large, is a good thing, and is generally upheld quite well in law. I'm just a little bit cynical.

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
I dont think this would destroy the basis that the US was built on, unless you are protecting the rights of people to vandalise the property of others, which is effectively what any form of illegal hacking is.

Do you take this slant with whitehat hacking? Personally, I consider it akin to breaking and entering to clean the windows.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
Do you take this slant with whitehat hacking? Personally, I consider it akin to breaking and entering to clean the windows.

The only type of hacking which is condonable is sanction pen. testing - such as the type performed by specialist security firms (RITS being an example).

If you are breaking into someone's system without their permission, then you are breaking into their system. You may claim afterwards that you disturbed nothing, and just looked around, or perhaps did their system some good.

The reality is that after any unauthorised attack is detected, a massive amount of manpower needs to be spent to re-secure, and also to prove the intruder did or did not touch anything.

Put it this way, if you woke up in the morning to find a note on your kitchen table saying "sorry for breaking inb, guv. Didnt take anything, washde your dishes, but you should really have your locks changed" what would be the response?

1) Call the police
2) Check for missing items
3) Get all your locks changed

Now, while this may ultimately have benefitted your security, it was still a crime. Any comparable virtual activity is classifiable in the same way - its a crime, and should be punished.

jc

JustHalf

My point was that it was both illegal hacking and not vandalism

Hobbes

I see no one noticed that they are (planning?) changing the law to do with false alarms very soon.

Now if you are caught ringing in a false alarm (eg. bomb threats) then you can go to jail for 20 years.

Shinji

I don't have a problem with that one, other than to grumble briefly about public flogging not being an option for morons who ring in false alarms...