Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/17/barney-lawyer-recommends/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Barney lawyer recommends court orders to hack copyright infringers [ip] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:05:38 -0400 From: H. Brower <hb003@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <43548965.9050802@private> I am not a lawyer, but as a former manager of an ISP this seems like a really bad idea. Many other sites may be on the same server as the alleged infringer, and a court sanctioned 'hacking' attack could take them all out. And if the hackers are unable to crack into the targeted web server, they might try a Denial of Service (DOS) attack instead. In that case the entire ISP network could be taken down. I would think that any 'collateral damage' caused to innocent parties under such circumstances would open both the lawyers and their clients to substantial legal jeopardy. So taking out an entire ISP might cause "Barney" to have a new owner after the ensuing trial.... Legitimate ISPs do respond to DMCA takedown notices, although maybe not as fast as some legal eagles would prefer. But if somebody is hosting a web server on their home broadband connection, the ISP can't just turn off the offending website without killing the entire connection. And what should the ISP do if the customer doesn't answer their phone or respond to warning emails? There is a presumption of innocence here, so should they be killing peoples internet connections every time some trigger-happy litigator sends out a notice? Hugh Brower -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Barney lawyer recommends court orders to hack copyright infringers [ip] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:24:15 -0500 From: Brad Trusty <politech@private> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private> Declan, I feel this is a very dangerous slippery slope being proposed here. The potential for abuse by large corporations or political parties is just too much to fathom. The current methods may be slow at enforcement, but I would rather see that than a wholesale change in the direction of hack first, prove your case later. Brad -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Barney lawyer recommends court orders to hack copyright infringers [ip] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:40:02 -0400 From: Jack Lloyd <lloyd@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <43548965.9050802@private> A denial of service attack won't be effective. For one thing, it would cause collateral damage all across the network, including potentially thousands of (innocent) users. The ISPs won't like it (most ISPs would probably shut you off regardless of any court order you might claim to have - all they will know is that you are causing them problems), and unless the court order can protect you from civil suits from the affected ISPs and users, it won't be worth much. And single-sourced denial of service attacks are easy to stop (you trace them back, call the ISP that it is coming from, and they kill the source); if you want to be effective, you need hundreds or thousands of sources with spoofed IPs, and that almost certainly means zombie nets. A lot of the same arguments with regards to collateral damage also apply to breaking into the machine and destroying the site, as it is typical for many sites to be hosted on a single machine. Unless the attacker is very selective, I don't see how this could possibly work. Jack -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Barney lawyer recommends court orders to hack copyright infringers [ip] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:07:33 -0700 From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas@private> Organization: Godmoma's Forge, LLC To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <43548965.9050802@private> Declan, This is moronic beyond belief: a) despite what this idiot may imagine, not every site is vulnerable to being "hacked". b) while it may be true that, with enough processing power, every site is subject to a DOS attack, the side effects (on other sites hosted on the same machine, or network, or on the network between the hacked site and the attack source) of that would probably induce more damage than the "benefit" to be gained by taking the target site offline... in fact, I'd venture to guess that the attacker would assume a rather significant liability risk themselves as a result. Would it be legally tenable to cut the power to an entire Mall with eighty stores in it, in order to block sales of "replica watches" from a kiosk inside? I hope not. c) there are obvious ways around this, anyway... the individuals being attacked could simply set up more sites than could ever be cost-effectively "hacked". I can almost guarantee this is what would happen. d) there is a failure to understand the nature of the technology involved - if I, as a web hosting provider, host a site that is attacked on a system that serves more than one customer, or that I administer directly, the "attacker" is attacking *MY PROPERTY* and threatening the integrity of *MY MACHINE* - the attack is far more likely to exploit some hole in the general operating system code (although I'd hope my system was up to date and tied down enough to not be vulnerable) than it is to exploit some flaw in the customer's code (if, in fact, they have any) If I have a tenant who is selling replica watches from an office inside my building, should the police be able to break in through the property manager's bathroom window in order to get to him? Regards, Thomas Leavitt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Barney lawyer recommends court orders to hack copyright infringers [ip] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:57:23 -0400 From: Lamb, Christopher <CJ.Lamb@Montgomery-Ins.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, It always amazes me that someone trained in the law could have this mentality (and there are always a few). The idea is so moronic, I feel like Lewis Black going into one of his rants (but definitely with the lack of humor). Does he think only the "good guys" will use these tools? Is he naïve enough to believe they won't fall into the "wrong" hands? That doesn't even begin to touch the surface regarding ethics of hacking (regardless of what he intends to call it). An apt analogy would be to call murder, "self defense before the assailant has a chance to attack." Of course, that's going to the extreme on the other side... I am 100% against these scammers getting away with the things they do on the Internet. And I would be 100% for stronger laws regarding items/services bought/sold over the internet. But I am 100% against any kind of vigilante justice. And that is exactly what Mr. Carlin's answer is - he as much as says the court is powerless. So, he asks for the power to act himself. Best regards, CJ Lamb -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Lawyers for Barney the dinosaur try to rid Net of offensive images [fs] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:46:10 -0500 From: Jim Davidson <davidson@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Dear Declan, Isn't satire of a public figure accepted as protected speech? Given Barney's role in corrupting the minds of young people into all sorts of socialistic drivel, he's a public figure who deserves to be mightily lampooned. Or, harpooned. > Web sites displaying less-than-flattering images of the > plump saurian. How are unique and original works of art depicting various purple dinosaurs in any way the copyright property of Lyons Partnership? These aren't the depictions of Barney that the Lyons Partnership copyrighted, but are depictions of Barney being evil, malicious, socialistic, imperialistic, pro-government, pro-idiocy, or doing obscene things to a cat with a fork. The idea of a purple dinosaur is nothing new nor unique to Lyons Partnership - purple skin was seen on several dinosaurs in picture books I read in the 1970s, and I had a collection of life-like model dinosaurs that happened to be made of purple plastic parts. That was okay, because Testors made many fine paints in various shades that could be slapped on the finished product. This whole notion that Lyons Partnership owns all conceivable images of fat, stupid, lumbering, idiotic dinosaurs is wrong and, frankly, evil. It is just one of those, "We ought to do something" reactions which inevitably go against freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right of the individual to have thoughts in his head as he pleases. As for this Carlin character's idea of hacking on court orders, one would hope he only hacks within the jurisdiction of the court. Hack offshore in someone else's jurisdiction without a corresponding court order, and there will be trouble. And, of course, he who hacks invites hacking. If Carlin thinks he has trouble keeping his web sites operational *now* boy will he lament it when he starts to attack other people's sites. Given the many difficulties that would likely arise from this "hacking on court orders" proposal, it might be well to take a tip from Hippocrates and say, "First, do no harm." Breaching the security of a third party's web hosting service in order to attack a second party who is selling trademark fakes against the wishes of the first party is no way to uphold the rule of law. Regards, Jim http://indomitus.net/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Lawyers for Barney the dinosaur try to rid Net of offensive images [fs] Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:31:07 -0500 From: Parks <dparks@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, politech@private At 5:22 AM -0000 10/18/5, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Representative excerpt from one letter sent last week by Matthew Carlin >of Gibney, Anthony and Flaherty, LLP >(http://www.gibney.com/Attorneys/Bios/carlin_m.cfm): > "It has come to the attention of Lyons Partnership that you are >operating a web site found at URL: www.dustyfreet.com/evil/enemy.html. >Your web site contains copyrighted Barney images. Hi Declan: www.dustyFEET.COM.... is the real address. I thought parody was protected by fair use. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 10:54:38 PDT