Re: Why do we vote these people in?

From: Hiro Protagonist (adminat_private)
Date: Sun Sep 30 2001 - 16:44:02 PDT

  • Next message: H Carvey: "Re: Non-GUI intrusion"

    Yeah, The Australian government just love passing in computer laws, we
    already have the censorship and ASIO one. Ontop of that we have crap
    bandwidth, but...it's the governments own ignorance that saves us from
    these stupid laws. Protecting computers and keeping people safe online can
    only be done by professional hackers,  government sure as hell aint gonna
    do it. It's only bright minds with the right skill and vision that can. In
    this bill you notice the ignorance standing out so blatantly:
    
    "the Cybercrime Bill 2001 was introduced by the Government in July, and
    proposes seven new hi-tech offences, covering hacking, denial-of-service
    attacks, website vandalism, spreading viruses, and using computers in
    offences such as stalking, fraud and sabotage."
    
    Going through the bills the term hacking is used to represent the offense
    of breaking into a computer without being authorised, but they didn't
    define it.  They use hacking all over the place too, which really is
    pretty stupid, because as we know a hacker is actually a highly skilled
    computer specialist/prgrammer and not a cracker. . They don't mention
    about cracking and they don't mention any current terminology at all,
    actually. Like whitehats, security engineers, etc. Most professional
    security engineers can get around this bill ok. The badest part about it
    is, the government can get a court order, come to our very home and make
    computer professionals in Australia assist them in crimes. Ontop of that,
    we have the censorship laws, and a law making it legal for our CIA
    equivalent ASIO to be allowed to break into any computer in Australia. AND
    now, more laws telling us we have to assist the goverment in computer
    crimes. Ontop of all that again we have really bad bandwidth too! So I
    guess you may notice alot of Australians moving overseas if the Austraian
    government doesn't lighten up a bit and actually take the time to research
    into technology. In these times restrictions placed upon people and
    evolution itself, pisses people off that can actually come to understand
    change in society and how to keep harmony the right ethical way . Poor
    Australian networks are going to be a sitting duck in the future of war if
    they leave it upto our government to PROTECT them and not the actual
    PEOPLE that can.
    
    That's my two bucks worth.
    
    Best regards,
    
    Michael Korolew
    IT Security Engineer/Hacker          Secured Networks
    E-Mail: adminat_private    "Lock onto Secured.com.au"
    http://www.gridlocked.net       http://www.secured.com.au
    
    
    
    Luke Potter wrote:
    
    This may be a bit off topic, but here goes,
    
    The passing of this Bill has been likened to a knee jerk reaction on the
    governments part, and will greatly influence how security engineers in
    Australia go about their business.
    
    http://australianit.news.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,2944524%5E442,00.htm
    l
    
    Sorry about the size of the quote, but this is an extract from the
    explanatory memoranda for the new bill...
    
    This offence is designed to cover persons who possess programs or
    technology
    designed to hack into other peoples computer systems or impair data or
    electronic communication. For example, a person will commit the offence if
    the person possesses a program which will enable him or her to launch a
    denial of service attack against a Commonwealth Departments computer
    system
    and intends to use the program for that purpose. It would also be an
    offence
    for a person to possess a disk containing a computer virus that the person
    intends to release over the Internet in order to impair data in infected
    computers. In both instances, the person would also commit the offence if
    he
    or she intends to provide the program to another person for the purpose of
    enabling the other person to impair electronic communication or computer
    data. There will be many occasions where that intention will be evident
    from
    the content of the data.
    
    There is no requirements or set conditions which must be met in order for
    a
    prosecuting body to determine how 'intent' is to be determined which means
    that it could be extremely hard to defend yourself if there is a motive
    (regardless of whether or not you would actually carry it out).
    
    
    Regards
    
    Luke
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    This e-mail may be confidential. Any opinions expressed herein are the
    opinion of the writer unless there is an express indication to the
    contrary.
    If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete
    and destroy all copies and immediately reply by return e-mail. Ipex ITG
    disclaims all liability and responsibility for any direct or indirect loss
    arising from this e-mail and/or any attachments.
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert
    (SIA)
    Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
    automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please
    see:
    https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA)
    Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
    automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see:
    https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 23:35:17 PDT