Wow, to coin a phrase what the heck are they thinking.... New bill could let companies retaliate against hackers
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
Definition for hack? There are probably a dozen. Typically courts will look at the plain meaning of a term unless it is defined. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has a rather complicated one: 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The DMCA has another that is circumventing a digital protection mechanism. 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
But I mean, there are so many different ways to hack something that it could trigger one or many laws.
The typical dictionary definition revolves around the use of computer code to solve a problem. So hack isn't always nefarious but I see it mostly used in a negative context with a negative connotation (i.e. to bypass security).
But I mean, there are so many different ways to hack something that it could trigger one or many laws.
The typical dictionary definition revolves around the use of computer code to solve a problem. So hack isn't always nefarious but I see it mostly used in a negative context with a negative connotation (i.e. to bypass security).
I will add that I agree that these particular lawmakers are morons who aren't thinking through the consequences of their legislation. Its unfortunately typical and its why people disregard laws in the US (because they don't make sense!). The DMCA is but one example (I mean, talk about a law blatantly ignored by a majority of those <35yo). Speed limits, stop signs, marijuana prohibition. It goes on and on.
I'm not entirely sure why someone can privatize this kind of business (Blackwater of hacking). I'm not an international lawyer, so I know very little, but I don't know of a law that prohibits this kind of interstate activity yet.
EchoDelta
Supporting Member
I recommend viewing “the internet’s own boy” - I knew Aaron and his case was (in my mind) an example of retaliation gone awry- in this case even with / through the legal system.
If the article linked is right, it could be interpreted as you private corporations using systems to bypass security measures, paying providers for backdoors, and other activities that could go beyond/outside the legal system.
This is especially risky with private parties unilaterally determining targets, getting private information without subpoenas, and even risking planting evidence and creating scapegoats.
Can any of *you* actively prove your systems were not used to hack X, if X is determined enough to find *you* or *anyone* guilty of something?
If the article linked is right, it could be interpreted as you private corporations using systems to bypass security measures, paying providers for backdoors, and other activities that could go beyond/outside the legal system.
This is especially risky with private parties unilaterally determining targets, getting private information without subpoenas, and even risking planting evidence and creating scapegoats.
Can any of *you* actively prove your systems were not used to hack X, if X is determined enough to find *you* or *anyone* guilty of something?
Similar threads
