Re: [Full-Disclosure] House approves spyware legislation

From: Bankim J. Tejani (tejani_at_alum.rpi.edu)
Date: 10/07/04

  • Next message: Byron L. Sonne: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Paranid ramblings - what's the deal? Bounded variables aren't?"
    To: RandallM <randallm@fidmail.com>
    Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:18:12 -0400
    
    

    While good in principle, this legislation is hopelessly unenforceable
    and is almost certainly just election year politics. Somebody knows
    this and is probably the 1 vote against it. Think about it:

    Say that this was a law and someone does what you say and changes your
    homepage or something similar with some spyware. Here are somethings
    that any prosecutor or civil attorney would have to consider before
    pressing charges:

    1) How can you prove what the setting was before? It's one thing for
    you to know what it was, but another to prove it in a court of law.
    Otherwise it's your word versus theirs.

    2) How can you find out who exactly was the person or company that took
    this action? You're talking about a massive time undertaking to trace
    the packet data through every router between you and the accused.

    3) Was their machine used by some hacker? This, unfortunately (or
    fortunately, depending on how you see it), has been used in court and
    proved to be a successful defense.

    4) What was the motive for changing your computer specifically?

    5) What type of crime is appropriate? Is it theft? trespassing?
    moving your plant from your front yard to your back yard?

    6) What is an appropriate sentence? The five minutes you lost changing
    it back paid at your current salary? A fine? jail time?

    I am not a lawyer, but only a little common sense about the law is
    needed here. Some of these issues apply not only to this law, but all
    forms of cyber-related law. Few organizations have successfully
    prosecuted under any form of cyber law. The most notable so far has
    been the RIAA, whose cases were never tested in court, but used to
    torque people into paying fines rather than facing legal bills that
    would bankrupt them.

    If we keep passing unenforceable legislation, all we'll end up with is
    a tomb of law with hundreds of thousands of lawyers looking through it
    and an internet that's just as lawless as it is right now. On second
    thought, keep passing those laws. <<searching for LSAT book>>

    --Bankim

    On 06 Oct, 2004, at 19:09, RandallM wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > <|>On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:03:45 -0700, Gregory Gilliss
    > <|><ggilliss@netpublishing.com> wrote:
    > <|>> Great, Not that I'm any fan of spyware, but this is just
    > <|>another law
    > <|>> against hacking. Think - what's the difference between this and
    > <|>> someone using XSS to "take control" of a computer? If you
    > <|>r00t a box
    > <|>> and deface the home page, then you've broken this law.
    > <|>>
    > <|>> <sigh> Instead of fixing the problem (poor software
    > <|>security) we pass
    > <|>> laws to punish the people who do the things that
    > <|>illustrate the problem.
    > <|>> Basic philosophical differences, blah blah blah ...
    > <|>>
    > <|>> Worst of all, do you really think that the spyware rackets
    > <|>will slow
    > <|>> down or cease because of this? Nope - they'll just migrate
    > <|>out of the jurisdiction.
    > <|>>
    > <|>> -- Greg
    > <|>End of Full-Disclosure Digest
    > <|>
    >
    >
    > I guess one has to decide if browser hijacking is not the taking of
    > personal
    > property. I for one do not fine it amusing to open my browser and it
    > has
    > been redirected to a hijacked page as my new Homepage!
    > If this law would allow me...the user to bring down hell upon these
    > people
    > then I'm all for it.
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


  • Next message: Byron L. Sonne: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Paranid ramblings - what's the deal? Bounded variables aren't?"

    Relevant Pages

    • RATs Poop On Their Wheat Toast as WI AG Claims Union-Cornholing Bill Is Now Law
      ... Wisconsin AG Claims Collective-Bargaining Measure Is Now Law ... Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen told a state appeals court ... The legislation, championed by the first-term Republican governor, ...
      (alt.politics)
    • waste why deposits Jays tel
      ... the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] was signed into ... law by president Carter on October 25, ... The key to the legislation could only have been dreamed up by Franz Kafka: ... The Supreme Court Chief Justice picks which federal judges serve in the ...
      (rec.arts.poems)
    • Re: OT: Chuck Schumer to hold hearings on Supreme Court decision!?!?
      ... campaign financing law, Sen. Chuck Schumer held a press ... members of the Supreme Court?!? ... Chuck U can stomp his foot all he wants. ... I'm guessing they should be addressing legislation that could put other ...
      (rec.arts.tv)
    • Re: Constitutional expret memointerrogatory
      ... the US Congress set about enacting a law to tax ... Some commentators speculate that this legislation may constitute ... Court Case, Nixon vs. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 ... I don't think there is much doubt about congressional intent to punish ...
      (rec.sport.football.college)
    • Re: Constitutional expret memointerrogatory
      ... the US Congress set about enacting a law to tax ... Some commentators speculate that this legislation may constitute ... Court Case, Nixon vs. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 ... I don't think there is much doubt about congressional intent to punish ...
      (rec.sport.football.college)