Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cyberlaw !?!?!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cyberlaw !?!?!

    Do we need it ? Do we need any restrictions by law enforcement for our free world ? Does it make sense, to put the rules on these kind of community ? to PROTECT them ?

  • #2
    Originally posted by jamoer
    Do we need it ?

    Yes we do need some laws that would be called "Cyberlaws", these laws would refer more towards the prosecution/evidence collecting (ect.) of a crime then an abridgement of users rights.

    Do we need any restrictions by law enforcement for our free world ?
    Yes, Restricting people from committing crimes online is definitely necessary. How would you like your credit card to get stolen?

    the rules on these kind of community ? to PROTECT them ?
    You need to be a bit more specific as to which community you are refering to and what rules.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by highwizard
      Yes, Restricting people from committing crimes online is definitely necessary. How would you like your credit card to get stolen?
      I'm with HighWiz on this one.

      Besides your credit card getting stolen, how would you like it if you had a son or daughter that ended up on a child porn site?

      Without having some of the Cyberlaws that are currently in place, could you imagine what the computer world could be like?
      "It is difficult not to wonder whether that combination of elements which produces a machine for labor does not create also a soul of sorts, a dull resentful metallic will, which can rebel at times". Pearl S. Buck

      Comment


      • #4
        Sounds like someones been reading the Hacker Manifesto.

        Rules and law exist for a reason. While some laws are poorly written (PATRIOT act), and others have no effect (Brady Bill), the vast majority of laws work to protect people. We need cyberlaw so we can prosecute groups like child pornographers and smuggling rings (yes, folks that traffic in human beings and narcotics use the internet to coordinate). These laws also seek to protect you from identity theft, credit fraud, etc.

        I return whatever i wish . Its called FREEDOWM OF RANDOMNESS IN A HECK . CLUSTERED DEFEATED CORn FORUM . Welcome to me

        Comment


        • #5
          An honest man does not need to refer to the law book to see if what he is doing is right or wrong. The hard part is balancing between socialism and anarchy in order to give the most freedom possible. Think of it like the point in the road where it gets wider before it gets narrower again. You start trading freedoms for safety, until you are safely in jail.

          Imagine how awesome the Internet would be if there were no viruses and no spam. It would have been taxed long ago!

          Comment


          • #6
            Without cyberlaws there would be cyber anarchy.
            "A Macintosh will not crash, ever"
            --The Tobacco Industry

            Comment


            • #7
              First off, let me say that I agree there has to be some laws and regulations in regards to computer use. I dislike the term "cyber law" so I won't use it. Now, allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a second here.

              I think it is possible to make a case that no laws to specifically govern the use of computers are needed. Child pornography was mentioned. It is already illegal. Do you need a further law to make it "more" illegal? I think this can be likened to "hate crime" legislation. It's already illegal to kill someone. Why is it "more" illegal if you scream a racial slur while pulling the trigger?

              Same can be said with unauthorized access. There are trespassing, breaking and entering (that might be stretching it), vandalism laws already in place. These things are against the law. Would it not be possible to merely modify definitions of these things to include the computer hardware/software. By that I mean, rather than modify the law to say that "it is illegal to trespass on a computer" which sounds bizarre when you say/read it, modify the definition of what can be trespassed on to include hardware/software, etc.


              Wouldn't approaching criminal violations that involve computers using existing laws also reduce the outrageous sentences that some attackers get.

              Here is a (hypothetical) example of what I mean. I live near Ft. Meade. Right outside of NSA there is a sign that reads "National Security Agency" and has the spiffy NSA logo. If an 18 yr old kid came by and spraypainted "Facist" on that sign (which is owned by the US Gov. and sits on US Gov property) he would likely get arrested, pay a fine, possibly a short jail term and receive 6 mos to a year probation (if that long). If the same kid defaced the NSA website with the word Facist, he would be facing a much more severe penalty, when in reality, the crimes are virtually the same. They both invlove being in an area they don't have authorization to be in (one physical, one not) and causing some form of damage to something that belongs to the US Gov (one physical, one not) and the end result is grafitti (one physical, one not).

              Anyway, just throwing a different viewpoint out there. Not even sure it is MY viewpoint...
              perl -e 'print pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'

              Comment


              • #8
                Good points Chris.

                I ABSOLUTELY HATE the Homeland Security act. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe it said something along the lines of anyone who does malicious activity online is a terrorist and gets a very large prison sentence.
                "A Macintosh will not crash, ever"
                --The Tobacco Industry

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JiTRiF
                  Good points Chris.

                  I ABSOLUTELY HATE the Homeland Security act. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe it said something along the lines of anyone who does malicious activity online is a terrorist and gets a very large prison sentence.
                  Are you talking about the Homeland Security Act or the Patriot Act?


                  Homeland Security Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:h.r.5005.enr:

                  Patriot Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107Zv799J::
                  Last edited by ; March 18, 2004, 16:04.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think defacing a website makes a person feel more violated.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by astcell
                      I think defacing a website makes a person feel more violated.

                      I don't mean to be crass, but the feelings of the victim aren't necessarily a factor in determining punishment.

                      In many states a guy that sells pot to another adult across the street from a school will receive a mandatory minumum sentence that is longer than a first time rapist. Which crime left the victim feeling more violated.
                      perl -e 'print pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by highwizard
                        Are you talking about the Homeland Security Act or the Patriot Act?
                        Yeah, it's probably the Patriot act.

                        I'm sure you get the point though.
                        "A Macintosh will not crash, ever"
                        --The Tobacco Industry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chris
                          I don't mean to be crass, but the feelings of the victim aren't necessarily a factor in determining punishment.
                          The entire reason for alot of computer related punishments is not actually what they did, but what they could have done. People feel insecure when they aren't quite sure how to deal with something.
                          As my principal said, "Its not that I don't trust you, its that I am not comfortable knowing you have access to anything you want whenever you want it."

                          Really, the only way to stop that feeling of insecurity would be to make laws that are specific to the technical sect.
                          The dude abides.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Amazing that using a computer to commit a crime appears to make it a bigger crime than doing it without a computer. Know what I think? I think the septegenarian judges in the courts don't know what computers can and can not do (ask Mitnick!) so until there is a SALT treaty they simply toss the book at the problem.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by astcell
                              Amazing that using a computer to commit a crime appears to make it a bigger crime than doing it without a computer. Know what I think? I think the septegenarian judges in the courts don't know what computers can and can not do (ask Mitnick!) so until there is a SALT treaty they simply toss the book at the problem.
                              I am in complete agreement, but to take it one step farther, it's not just the septegenarian judges who don't understand what computers can and can't do, it's most of the people in the world who don't understand. Ignorance breeds fear. A good example would be the Salem Witch Trials. People in general see computers and those who use them as a necessary evil. It's scary to think that someone you don't know could have access to every record and every file about you. Those who have attacked websites (whether government or otherwise) are criminals. They deserved whatever punishment was meted out to them. They are cyber terrorists, who attacked websites with the full knowledge of what they were doing. They are the people who claim to be hackers and crackers and have given everyone in the IT community a black eye. People who casually use the internet are assulted with a barrage of porno ads, get rich quick scams, virus scares, spyware, adware, and the list goes on. So shouldn't the average user BE afraid? I feel that there ought to be some form of regulation in cyber space. To protect the innocent. It must be remembered that not everyone is "leet" ( a word I truely hate).
                              I enjoy talking to myself...it's usually the only intelligent conversations I get to have.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X