RE: CRIME Senator Hatch - Destroy file swappers' computers

From: St. Clair, James (JStClair@private)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 04:54:14 PDT

  • Next message: Todd Ellner: "CRIME Wired: Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?"

    Here within DC the ITAA serves as a great group to help get the message out
    about these issues. If you are a member, or know one, have them send the
    message to their reps and deliver a common voice from the IT community. 
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dorning, Kevin E - DI-3 [mailto:kedorning@private]
    Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:38 PM
    To: 'Justin Kurynny'; Christiansen, John (SEA); crime@private
    Subject: RE: CRIME Senator Hatch - Destroy file swappers' computers
    
    
    So, I guess the bottom line is - Write to our legislators and educate them
    on a really really dumb idea.  Maybe they can take him aside and say, "Look
    Oran, You need to get a new perspective on this."  
    What do you think?
    
    
    KD
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Justin Kurynny [mailto:justink@private]
    Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:04 PM
    To: Christiansen, John (SEA); crime@private
    Subject: RE: CRIME Senator Hatch - Destroy file swappers' computers
    
    
    okay, fair enough. analogies aren't much good for developing real
    solutions to real problems, but if we avoid analogies altogether, then
    we blind ourselves to a potentially wider perspective of the issue at
    hand. when we say that we should learn from our mistakes, i don't take
    that to mean that the lessons of historical mistakes are only relevant
    if the present situation we face is *exactly* like the one in which the
    mistake is made.
    
    in this sense, looking at how we deal with individuals and theft and the
    value of the goods is important. i agree with many of your points, so
    why would we destroy a computer if someone downloads a copyrighted song?
    to better fit the crime, why wouldn't we simply render the file
    inoperable or some other less extreme protection of the property in
    question?
    
    self defense and property (read: profit) protection are two entirely
    different topics and the two should not be mixed as loosely as they have
    been in this thread. by downloading or storing copies of copyrighted
    material on a computer, an individual is by no stretch putting the
    safety of another individual in danger. therefore, launching a
    hack-back-to-destroy attack on a supposed violator is, in my opinion, an
    invalid argument when done so on the premise of self defense.
    
    justin
    
    justin kurynny
    manager of network engineering
    waggener edstrom, inc.
    
    *
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Christiansen, John (SEA) [mailto:JohnC@private] 
    Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:36 PM
    To: crime@private
    
    Serious response: In most states the store owner would have the right to
    use force to prevent harm to property, but the degree of force would
    have to be in some sense proportionate to the harm to be prevented.
    
    Shooting a burglar who's coming at you with a tire iron is probably
    going to be accepted; shooting a shoplifter in the back is probably way
    out of bounds (at least in the relatively pacific Northwest, if not
    everywhere); breaking a thief's fingers with a bat when you are trying
    to stop him from grabbing the cash drawer probably won't get you
    prosecuted or subject you to civil liability (though there are some
    pretty nervy perps out there); burning up the getaway car is probably
    too potentially dangerous to third parties and yourself, not to mention
    the thief, to be acceptable.  
    
    The valid point being that there is precedent out there which might
    support hack back self-help - the problem being avoidance of seductive
    but misleading analogies, when all you have to work from is analogy. 
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Justin Kurynny [mailto:justink@private]
    Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:08 PM
    To: crime@private
    Subject: RE: CRIME Senator Hatch - Destroy file swappers' computers
    
    
    serious, sarcasm-free questions for the group: if a shop owner catches
    someone stealing something from her store, should she have the right to
    destroy the tools of the thief's vocation? in other words, should we
    grant her the right to break his hands and legs? maybe even amputate
    them? less drastically and humanly injurious, should she have the right
    to drop a lit match into the thief's getaway car as a means of
    destroying it?
    
    justin
    
    justin kurynny
    manager of network engineering
    waggener edstrom, inc.
    
    *
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Christiansen, John (SEA) [mailto:JohnC@private]
    Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:42 AM
    To: 'Crispin Cowan'
    Cc: crime@private
    
    If the ISP is responsive and the rules of engagement say you don't
    escalate if the ISP is responsive, then hacking back isn't legit. But
    that doesn't suggest you should avoid figuring out what the rules should
    be - seems to me it suggests you should figure out the rules. We didn't
    have this one before, did we? But now we have a consensus on this point.
    So all we need to do is make sure sysadmins are appropriately responsive
    and the rules around escalation become moot. So, following this
    alternative branch, what are the rules for sysadmin responsiveness? In
    other words, when can I hold an ISP
    liable for failing to cut off hostile activity?    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 05:16:13 PDT