Cyberlaw !?!?!

[TheDudeJeff]

"all laws will make is criminals"

[highwizard]

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.

Why not do something to educate the judges that you know?

[astcell]

I don't know any judges. I always settle out of court. :p

[Frost]

I'm with Chris on this one.

Also, I believe that cyberlaw is necessary, but what about those who uphold the law? And how about those who try the accused? I'm of the opinion that there should be a seperate, specialized court to handle cyber crimes. The 65-year-old judge who listens to people bicker over traffic violations should NOT be the same person who proceeds over a DDoS case.

I've worked for some of the world's largest ecommerce firms. At one point, I got my friend Marc a job as a graphic artist at the place I worked. Marc knows nothing about networks, servers, or anything like that... He is an artist, and produces only artwork for print and digital use. After being employed for several months, Marc asked his boss if he could use some of the artwork he produced (at work) in his personal portfolio. His boss agreed, and even gave him permission in writing. Subsequently, Marc posted some awesome pieces of artwork from the company in his personal portfolio, in JPG format. He even posted the disclaimer at the bottom, "Used with permission from e***** Corporation."

After 9-11 the company was obviously hurting, and had to let some people go... But they did everything they could to NOT have to pay unemployment benefits to those who they'd have to lay off. They accomplished this by finding most of the people guilty of some sort of breach in company policy or even a "computer crime". Marc was no exception. They fired him on the grounds that he was using "company property" (AKA the artwork he himself produced) in a personal fashion (on his artist portfolio website) without permission. Marc argued that he did have permission, and had a written letter from his supervisor to prove it. The company said his boss didn't have the authority to make that kind of decision, dismissed the note, and fired him all the same. They also said they would not press criminal charges if he took the artwork offline immediately. What's more, he was denied unemployment benefits under the reasoning that he knowingly and willfully violated company policy and, in essence, STOLE company property for his own personal gain.

Marc sued the company. In a proceeding with the judge, his case was ruled in favor of the corporation, because the way the judge understood it, Marc was taking the company artwork and SELLING on his personal website. No, it was just a portfolio.

Marc took them to court again. Again, he lost. This time, the judge barely spoke English, and was under the impression that Marc literally stole physical computer property from the company premesis, had it in his home, and was using it for his own personal gain.

Marc took them to court a third time. After hours of proceedings with yet another judge who understands NOTHING about computers, Marc lost again and was nearly convicted of being a major hacker, when it was ruled that he had clearly hacked into the company servers, had uploaded his own personal materials, and was in essence using the company property for personal profit.

Marc never did get any money from any of this, and was unemployed for over 18 months after 9-11. He dropped his pursuit of any kind of retribution, because it was obvious that there was no judge who could understand something as simple as a JPG file.

[highwizard]

I'm with Chris on this one.

Also, I believe that cyberlaw is necessary, but what about those who uphold the law? And how about those who try the accused? I'm of the opinion that there should be a seperate, specialized court to handle cyber crimes. The 65-year-old judge who listens to people bicker over traffic violations should NOT be the same person who proceeds over a DDoS case.

That usually wouldn't be the case anyway, since traffic violations would go to a local magistrate.

[theish]

All good reason for a populus that can create a voice against the un-informed.

one on one persuasion over time will win the un-informed and ignorant war.

[astcell]

Reminds me of the Congressman that wanted to ban drunks on the Information Superhighway. He thought it was a real road somewhere.

[enCode]

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...

Honestly I wish every one could think things through like this.
Great point Chris. ;)

[i-t-n-i]

cyberlawz..

Hahahahaa if you think that..
Cyberlaws.. thatz actualy point of view...
I'll give U s0m3 xamplz :
- copy CD.. thatz a copy of any data.. not a pirat cd
- going in any other PC.. mak1ng 1-2 crashez of the mach1ne..
so!? R U guilty for him/them ignorance!?!??! NO FcoUrce.
in that case you got ssh at some pc.. not yourz but any pc in the net.
so.. what the fuck is the problem of guy who can't be safe `couz he is stupid???

LaW.. CybeRlaw.. no sh`t like that can be possible and alowed.!!!!

and If someone can tell me something about th4t.. make it free and now!!

\/

[Zhym]

I'm a big fan of avoiding computer-specific laws where none are needed. Most effects of hacking would seem to be covered already by theft, destruction of property, or trespassing, for example.

But there are a few differences between defacing a sign outside the NSA and defacing a web site. The former is seen by a relatively small number of people who drive to or by Fort Meade; the latter can be seen by anyone in the world. Also a website gives a lot more information than just the words "National Security Agency" (okay, this is the NSA, so maybe not that much more information). In scope and effect, defacing a web site seems more like vandalizing every copy of a day's newspaper. How do you prosecute that under existing laws? Do you file 100,000 counts of vandalism?

It seems that most computer crime has a much larger scope and greater damages than the non-computer versions. In the NSA example, the damages from defacing a road sign are local embarassment and some new paint. In the website example, there's global embarassment and probably a fair bit of forensics time. You have to be careful with that, though, or you end up with corporations claiming that one hacked web site cost them a million dollars in embarassment and repair, when repair sometimes just means pushing a new page from the backup server.

The analogy also gets more interesting if you talk about a corporation's e-commerce site instead of the NSA's page. Then it starts getting into user accounts and data (any credit cards on that site? If so, shame, but that's more damages), lost income while the site is down, blah blah and so on. Again, these are all costs that can be calculated separately without computer laws, but the computer laws can make it easier to do that without getting into gymnastics.

So, yeah, the crimes themselves could be the same in either case, and the matter of impact could be left to figuring out how bad the damages were. I'm no lawyer, but maybe the purpose of computer laws is to make that part easier, as well as to save judges and juries (who, it's already been pointed out, are far from tech-savvy) from having to decide cases based on various ever-changing analogies.

[Chris]

But there are a few differences between defacing a sign outside the NSA and defacing a web site. The former is seen by a relatively small number of people who drive to or by Fort Meade; the latter can be seen by anyone in the world.

...


In the NSA example, the damages from defacing a road sign are local embarassment and some new paint. In the website example, there's global embarassment and probably a fair bit of forensics time.

Really. If someone had the stones to spray paint "Facist" on NSAs sign you don't think national/international news would pick that up and spread the embarassment? I do.

Also, there are costs aside from some paint. You have to pay someone to repaint, it is on Gov. property so even something as petty as vandalism is now a Federal offense and would be investigated by Federal LEOs. There would be the internal cost of an investigation into why the gaurds at the gaurd shack sitting about 35 feet from the NSA sign didn't notice some kid with a can of spray paint hanging out there.

These aren't ALL of the costs associated, but there are costs with the sign example. Are they the same? No, but at some point depending on the cost (to use your newspaper example) it would likely no longer be charged as simple vandalism, but would instead be elevated (not sure what the next level up is, Destructionof Personal/Private/Government property maybe?) to a different offense.

I am not disagreeing with your overall point though, merely defending my devil's advocate point from above.

[Zhym]

You're right - if the NSA's sign got defaced, we'd probably hear about it. But the NSA's specialty is information security, not physical (as much), so while "Fort Meade sign defaced" is news, "NSA web site defaced" is bigger news, and easier to see. If someone writes "Fuck the NSA" on a sign, we might hear in the news that a sign was defaced, but we won't see the message.

But the NSA is a big ol' special case. They're federal, and they're government, and they're more or less military, and, well, they're the NSA. I imagine that just about any form of messing with the NSA will get you into seventeen kinds of trouble.

[phobal]

We need it, but only in a utopia would cyberlaws truly work and have balance. It's such a new thing, it'll take forever, if at all, for the law to catch up. Being that the world system is anarchy and that majority of 'cybercrime' is comitted from one nation to another, you just cannot draft up a law and it just can't be enforced.

[i-t-n-i]

Hey boyz.. Hey girlz..

If my word is the master one in the trouble.. I could say that got to be one organization controling that hole network.. BUT NOT NATIONAL!!!..
..I mean.. something like DeFCoN.. a group of people.. who be able togather to do ANYTHING in the network, and control It.. Shit like that.. :}

Peace ya :}-=*

[phobal]

If my word is the master one in the trouble.. I could say that got to be one organization controling that hole network.. BUT NOT NATIONAL!!!..
..I mean.. something like DeFCoN.. a group of people.. who be able togather to do ANYTHING in the network, and control It.. Shit like that.. :}

Peace ya :}-=*

Uhm.... what?