I agree. We MUST take our time when passing such legislation of utmost importance. We cannot allow slopppy legislation in this day and age. It affects WAY too many lives. We've got to be able to work out a basic ground rules here. We can't just call everyone a terrorist and execute them. That would be the terrorists' dream come true. America prosecutes its own citizens (those citizens may just happen to be ignorant as in the example below) as terrorists and falls as a result. ----- Original Message ----- From: Oliver Petruzel <opetruzelat_private> To: 'Joshua Fritsch' <joshua.fritschat_private>; 'Kevin L. Poulsen' <klpat_private>; <VULN-DEVat_private> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:08 PM Subject: New Terror Bill > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kevin wrote (thanks btw!): > - - - --- snip --- > >1) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or > >impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or > >care of 1 or more individuals; 2) physical injury to any person; > >3) a threat to public health or safety > >4) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a Government > >entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national > >defense, or national security; > - - - --- snip --- > > Hello All, > My first concern, even with the the new wording in the ACTUAL BILL, > is any DIRECT association between such acts and the word "terrorist" > or "terror." An example to support this: > > A kiddie is on IRC and is told GirlX is at IP x.x.x.x by his buddy. > Said kiddie decides to nuke x.x.x.x without verifying the address > (for argument's sake, let's say he has an automated nuker) > It turns out x.x.x.x runs the stoplights in Town A. > This causes a car accident where someone is severely injured or > killed. > The kid is easily caught AND JAILED FOR ACTS OF TERROR!!! > > This may be considered "negligent homicide" (or perhaps just a dumb > example!) or something similar, but it is NOT terrorism by ANY modern > and accepted definition of the term. In this case, the new bill WOULD > support prosecution under the Terror Act, but clearly the kid does > not intend to cause "terror" when he ping-flooded that IP, he's just > an ignorant and dumb kid. (ie, kiddie) > > This example is enough in itself to remove this portion of the bill > COMPLETELY, and perhaps create a NEW BILL to address the same crimes, > but not linked to the word "terror," and with more appropriate > punishments. For I DO strongly believe in punishing those who commit > crimes, even accidental crimes! > > My second concern is the future proposals lying dormant at the > moment. Those that would make the posession of virii, > vulnerability-testing software, exploit code, and How-To's illegal. > As a security professional who maintains quite a vast collection of > all of the above (uh oh, did I say that?), I fear my line of work > becoming extinct or VERY regulated. That is unacceptable and we must > pay close attention. > > We must remain vigilant in our observation of proposed legislature, > and we must remain accurate in our comprehension of the laws > proposed. It appears half of the people who have responded to this > thread have done so without acrtually reading the proposal or doing > any research at all. This makes for weak arguments and mistakes in > understanding. PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH. > > Then, when you are truly informed on the issue, respond en masse to > anyone who will listen, starting first, of course, with your > representatives in government. > > God Bless America. > > Sincerely, > > Oliver Petruzel > Computer Security Specialist > Near DC... > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> > > iQA/AwUBO8tsKMB0bPciTdyxEQLTTQCfWvoxwdVfU6Tor1DAuXQYv1AYJVsAoKfc > 4hRvkmY60BVvMxPYgf7yRpOv > =yR4v > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 16 2001 - 09:16:12 PDT