Cyberlaw !?!?!

[Chris]

Yo.. look.. I've smoke too much that night..
..but I thing that there is no fuckin way I to "sit" and explain you wH4t dA fUck 7h4t m3aN!!!
not cost so..

Look this one up then:

Troll.

[i-t-n-i]

yxxxxxxxxx....

Yo.. look.. I've smoke too much that night..
..but I thing that there is no fuckin way I to "sit" and explain you wH4t dA fUck 7h4t m3aN!!!
not cost so..

[Chris]

What didn`t U understand?

First off...it is you not U. Spell things out. This isn't AIM.
That said...let's look at your last post.

Chris, what sense?

What sense? What the fuck does that mean?

Is that the question here..

What are you asking? Is what the question here? What sense? THAT doesn't make any sense.

tell me what U think about cyberlaws...

Have you been reading? I think I have replied to this thread five or six times with opinions. What the hell are you looking for?

about useless thing I can talk too..

Obviously.

Let'z do som3thing couz I'm very angry of da that netz content..
..95% shitz.. let someone do something.. A?

Babble babble babble. What are you talking about. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that English was not your native language and that is why your posts were unintelligible. Now I am starting to think you are just a tard.

[i-t-n-i]

tell me..

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

What didn`t U understand?

[Chris]

Chris, what sense? Is that the question here.. tell me what U think about cyberlaws... about useless thing I can talk too.. everyone can..
Let'z do som3thing couz I'm very angry of da that netz content..
..95% shitz.. let someone do something.. A?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

[i-t-n-i]

Chris, what sense? Is that the question here.. tell me what U think about cyberlaws... about useless thing I can talk too.. everyone can..
Let'z do som3thing couz I'm very angry of da that netz content..
..95% shitz.. let someone do something.. A?

[Chris]

..hahha.. w0w.. The people around know what mean Bulgaria?
Chris, what U ment whit th1z?
(just interested what the people know about Us)

I mean English is obviously not your first language.

[i-t-n-i]

Hahahahahhaaa.....aaaaaaaa.......

..hahha.. w0w.. The people around know what mean Bulgaria?
Chris, what U ment whit th1z?
(just interested what the people know about Us)

[Chris]

Uhm.... what?

Bulgaria..

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.