Slashdot Mirror
Reno Proposes Global Anti-Cybercrime Network
Mr. T writes "According to this story, Janet Reno has proposed the formation of LawNet, a global network to fight computer crime. One major issue would involve overcoming jurisdictional questions - where do you prosecute?" Personally, I wish the government would spend less time trying to crack down on miscreants and more time educating the public. Prevention starts at the end-user, Janet!
Just like governments the world over the US is trying to tackle the symptoms of the problem rather than the causes. It's not just computer crime either, how many governments try to educate drivers rather than impose rediculous blanket speed limits. They are simply doing something for the sake of being seen to do something. This way is cheaper, quicker and easier, but utterly pointless. Think of it as a cold cure remedy, makes you feel better but does nothing to get rid of the cold!
'Eagles may fly but a weasle will never be sucked into a jet engine'
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
You really need to get out more.
:=
She is about to lose all the positive Karma she gained as a MS buster, by fighting against what the, according to most, what US stands, for. It is called Freedom.
Reno said LawNet would also need to focus on privacy issues, protecting consumers from invasions like the CD Universe extortion case.
To protect us ? Isn't there quite a lot of crime in the real world, the real world, that is within the jurisdiction of the police force ? Doesn't few instance of crime on the internet pale in comparison ?
Tell us the truth, Janet, Is this LawNet newspeak for Thought Police ?
$5 says lawnet.* get's dos'ed within the first week of service.
I'm not into US politics, so I can't really comment on the actual meaning of this and/or the relevance of the people involved... But I must say that the name "LawNet" has a real trashy, failed-SF-attempt sound to it. You can almost imagine it in some trashy movie. Yuck!
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
At first there are things that are considered computer crime in one country and are not in another. A typical example is reverse engineering which is treated differently in almost any country. There is no single rule of thumb about it.
Also, even for things that are considered to be crime everywhere, there is no real definition of computer crime usable for prosecution. If you cut out financial crime, copyright violation, p0rn, prostitution, etc there is only cracking and hacking left.
These:
1. Are not subject to prosecution in many countries as a computer related offence (they are quite often handled as petty crime, destruction of property, etc).
2. Even in countries with explicit computer related laws the same case may be treated very differently.
So this utterly pointless exercise has:
1. Very small scope
2. Very small common ground and common interest to start with.
Its only common interest may be the attempt to gain cheap political divididends...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
An FBI survey of Fortune 500 companies found 62 percent reported computer security breaches during the past year, [Reno] said.
Reno said LawNet would also need to focus on privacy issues, protecting consumers from invasions like the CD Universe extortion case.
And finally, my favorite... if anyone is willing to explain to me what is meant by this, please do so:
"It is perhaps not Big Brother we should be worried about, but big browser," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "We need to be fearful that the aggregation of information, if it is misused, is very terrifying."
--
"According to this story, Janet Reno has proposed the formation of LawNet, a global network to fight computer crime" i remember reading on hackernews that this was supposed to be a national american network, not global? in any case, i don't think the rest of the world is waiting on yet another american "global" initiave that will only wind up being controlled by the american government. hmmm...that wasn't a very relevant post. but what the hey. "avalanche? - yeah? - you stupid"
Does this mean protecting or privacy, or doing away with it as LawNet sees fit? I'm sorry, I see this in a very strong Orwellian light. Notice how the article emphasized one (totalitarian) law enforcement agency. Integration means less choices, bar none...
I've always considered most things online to be intellectual in nature, rather than physical (barring E-Commerce sites, etc., of course) and what I'm afraid of is this huge law enforcement agency can define cybercrime any way it wants to - will this extend past what we know to be illegal into...thoughtcrime?
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
That is, I get out with her
"It is perhaps not Big Brother we should be worried about, but big browser," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "We need to be fearful that the aggregation of information, if it is misused, is very terrifying."
.... %-/
It seems we need Big Brother to fight Darth Browser, because Darth aggregates info somehow, and that is terrifying, but wait a minute, Big Brother also knows everything about you, so it must be addressed, but
Reno wants to implement another process that will provide revenue for the government, erode our civil rights and basically do nothing to protect the individual. The rats nest of buracracy that this initiative will generate a whole bunch of revenue so that Big Brother can afford to put more cameras on the highways to trap speeders. But nothing to fix America's ailing Judicial System. Our site http://home1.gte.net/scotter8/styx/issues.htm
The internet is going to be a pervasive part of human society in the coming years---and as with all things some very undesirable elements will come in.
We *will* need protection against those elements and that protection has to be global in nature as is the internet.
But who watches the watchers and what is their morality? Every human belongs to a nation first and the global community second. How do we assure ourselves that the watchers will act in the best interests of us all...and not their country? Not themselves?
We need definitive answers to those questions before anything of this nature is attempted...
Doesn't the Interpol already offer this kind of coordination-between-authorities thing?
But: coordination and information exchange between authorities via a dedicated network does not cut down crime. In the modern society, wherever there's money or other goods of high value, there is crime. It just is like that, because nobody does anything to change the basic bad architechture of the whole system. Some people have a hard time staying alive, or they feel that the society they live in has not given them anything, so they resort to crime. High crime rates or very full jails are an indication that people do not feel well.
Some silly "LawNet" does not make people feel better. They can't eat it, they can't live in it, it doesn't keep them warm and it can't be drank.
They mean evil DeCSS "pirates" and reverse engineers, shrinkwrap license breakers, and crypto exporters. They mean those who provide security information that they'd rather was kept obscure. They mean software patent violators, Napster providers, Xenu $cientology mirrors, anonymous proxies and mail systems, and people who provide ways around filtering proxies. Basically, they mean to act to bolster their power against most everything that Slashdot holds dear.
I'd like to believe I'm being paranoid about this, but they've never given me a reason to feel otherwise. If they'd prefer that I was less paranoid, perhaps they should hold off legislation (eg UCITA) making things like the above more illegal. It would also help if they didn't pass legislation legitimising genuinely odious practices like spam.
I'd be happier, I think, if I could believe they were doing this to make us all safer, but I'm afraid that possibility doesn't move the meter from 0 on the credibilityometer.
--
Xenu loves you!
Is this another excuse to restrict export of cryptographic software?
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
Hey, Maybe next week, she will try to get anybody who uses encryption made a fellon, and be able to monitor your computer for the rest of your life.
Dosen't this seem like 1983, and not long to 1984.
It sure seems 1084ish
error 'ASP 0113'
Script timed out
/news/355783.asp
The maximum amount of time for a script to execute was exceeded. You can change this limit by specifying a new value for the property Server.ScriptTimeOut or by changing the value in the IIS administration tools.
Ayway, you guys have fun with your little totalitarian state. Those of you who can, relocate ASAP (Rob and Jeff, the Caribbean is always a good choice...); those who can't, prepare to forget the meaning of freedom in the coming years. Me, I'm in Brazil, which is not exactly the freest of countries either, but just in case anybody tries to bother me, I'm going back into my bunker and get my shotgun - it might turn out to be useful after all...
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
It is the lack of jurisdiction of national governments and legislatures on the Internet that has resulted in this single most free environment on the planet.
Not surprisingly, their lack of direct control over it has got them scared shitless --- just imagine, too much of this and the little people might get the idea that their "leaders" perform no useful function in the offline world either.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I mean, look what happens when cell phones fall into the hands of *Drug Dealers*. Plus, many men are using telephones with the intention of *getting women to have sex with them*. People *swear* on telephones, and talk about *bad things they shouldn't. Telephones are polluting the minds of our sons and daughters, something has to be done.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The government is best which gets the hell out of Dodge the most.
While we readers on slashdot feel some connection with illicit hackers, even if we personally deteste the thought of cracking into someone's box it will eventually become necessery to have serious law enforcement power to protect our machines. Sure most hackers are doing it just to see if it can be done or for the fun of it this doesn't mean there aren't malicious hackers out there. With the growth ofthe internet and the increasing commercialization *real* computer crime won't be far behind. Already we have seen examples of organized crime moving in on the action.
The easy anonimity and facelessness of the crimes opens up the doors for criminal activity on a massive scale. While it might be slightly interesting that 300,000 credit cards were recently stolen when this escalates it will become a serious problem.
Can prevention stop this problem? Experience says no. Even big companies with expert know-how get hacked not to mention the huge difficulty getting the masses to routinely upgrade their personal computers (which will probably have permanent connections within ten years).
Can current law enforcement adequatly deal with this problem? Probably not. If I route my attack through 10 countries (which would be easy enough to do) it would take reams and reams of paper work to get the necessery warrents for all ten countries to track me down. If this is happening on a widespread scale the government could not cope.
I will mourn the free-wheeling days of the internet but like the coyboys in the old west the needs of civilazation must necesserily squash the independent gunslinging culture of the internet. (Yes gun sligning...sheriffs on the net are few and far between people are left to secure their own hardware and match their skill vs. that of the hacker).
P.S. I used hacker intentionally here so please no "use cracker" posts. It is a lost cause the rest of the nation has already adopted the new vocabulary. Besides its just a word why do you care?
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
Separate the rhetoric from the substance and all you find is the usual legal travesty: the global controls will limit what the ordinary man can do, not the outlaw who can and does ignore the laws with impunity.
The only "undesirable element" that will get curbed by this is the freedom of the people. But then, it has always been the goal of those in power to put a firm cap on that. No change.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
It is great to spout on like that but nothing is really being said. This is obviously not a global thing until the global community can decide on what is legal and what is not. After that the next thing to decide is how best to safeguard ourselves from crime. And lastly, how to catch and convict criminals.
The porn issue has been discussed elsewhere, but in brief if a site is hosted in a country that has liberal censorship then no crime is being commited by the site host and America has to re-think its own attitude to these issues rather than try and tell other people how they should live.
The CD Universe issue is a red herring as extorsion is a crime in any country and as Max appears to be Russian I would think that the authorities should help the Russians catch him and let him get prosecuted and sentenced under Russian law (not nice).
The greatest problem is one of letting go. It is just like bringing up a child. When the child reaches a certain age you have to let go. It is really hard to release your control and let the child take control of its own life, but you have to do it.
If you are a good parent you will have taught your child what to look out for, and how best to protect his/her self. Has anyone seen any gov/aol/msn advice on how users should protect themselves? Can you imagine MSN telling people they should not use Win98 online as it has very weak security?
Catching the criminals is not as hard as it sounds. Remember the Melissa virus? Other techniques can be used to track traffic etc. but, as with all crime a proportion of criminals will get away with it. The biggest step here is to learn to concede jurisdiction to the relevant authority. The FBI are not going to find it easy playing a subordinate role to the Russians if they want to catch Max. So Max will probably get away with it thanks to a childish power struggle.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Reno has been digging herself a larger and larger hole for years now. It started with waco and the numurous other confrontations and moved to her every plan. The media is now starting to realize that she's an extreemist that doesn't know what she's talking about. If you want proof, just watch one of her press conferences. I've seen very few recently where a number of reporters actually pay attention. Mostly they seem to get the gist of what she's saying, write it down, and then doodle for the rest of the hour or so.
As far I know one cannot put DeCSS on his web site. Even a link!
But IMHO we are allowed to OWN one copy of DeCSS.
Why not to modify Napster to serve not only
*.mod, but also *.zip (and other?) file?
Since the US army recently announced they were going to set up a cyberwarfare unit, then she should go and arrest the commander, or doesn't the law apply to them?
I think gunslinging culture of the internet could be a good idea. People and organisation who can snif for suspectious connections. But I prefere I can always choose the ones who protect my machine.
How is this a privacy issue? Consumers gave their CC#s to CD Universe to obtain services from them. Maybe a retailer that sent you CDs for free is indeed a great idea, but it's probably not much of a viable business plan.
The only problem with CD Universe is that they were cracked.
That they were then blackmailed is no great issue since there are already perfectly adequate non-Internet-related anti-blackmail laws.
According to The Register the crack was caused by a hole in NetVerify. Personally it seems to me that credit card processor connection software like ICVerify's actually does very little for what it costs and it would be a Really Good Thing if it could be replaced by free software, for security reasons as well as lowering the cost of entry to e-commerce.
Anyway, haven't we already got pretty good information exchange on the computer security front without LawNet's help? If law enforcement isn't currently reading the likes of CERT advisories, that's it's own stupid fault IMHO.
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
This might just get me back into writting scripts for the kiddies.
If 62% of fortune 500 got hit, whats with the other 38% that didn't but were targets? Maybe the Reno just wants a safe area where people don't need to lock their front door or even have one.
The child-molestor religious nut David Koresh killed the member of his cult. Janet Reno is a hero, the nazi, racist, right-wing lunatic fringe are the problem.
Don't protect my system for me, thats my job. People are afraid of having their credit cards stolen from ecommerce, don't use it. Don't want our children seeing the 'vile filth' of the world? Use filters, moderate what they see and when they can see it, and don't dare come to me when your kids won't listen to you anymore because you kept them in such a sheltered life. By controlling peoples technology, what do we have? more ebullshit.com of everything, and more lawsuits. A waste of money on an open battle field in which (i hope) the government will lose. Computer crimes result because of someone who is smart enough to figure out where someone else didn't do their job. Which frightens and/or repulses YOU more? Walking the streets seeing the homeless, the drug dealers, the possible rapist or theif. Or the computer gurus?
> and more time educating the public.
They don't WANT us to be educated, that way, they can keep us subserviant.
At first I didn't see any harm or problem with LawNet as long as it boiled down to an agreement between countries to assist in tracking down internet based crime. This would mean that if the appropriate level of law enforcement in the US contacted the appropriate level of law enforcement in some other country a channel would be cleared for the rapid finding of facts, gathering of evidence and so on. Then I started thinking of the current state of extradition between countries. Extradition has been denied in serious crimes against people such as kidnapping or murder. The chances of any real cooperation in light of this would appear to be nil.
Second of all as far as the government goes for protecting privacy in actuallity it is against privacy, or at least against meaningful privacy. If they were in favour of privacy there would be no encryption restrictions, or if there were encryption restrictions it would be against snake oil encryption. My bet is that this stance won't change until the lack of strong encryption enables a third party to intercept and decode a message which from the governments point of view should have been kept private. Either that or perhaps a real war where letters exchanged with people back home might be intercepted and reveal information valuable to the enemy.
One day hackers may decide to shift their homework to bots/agents.
Maybe less exciting but certainly safer.
And for those who really don't want to code the whole thing perhaps MS will come up with some useful DLL, just like MAPI 8) Go ahead.. bust my bot ! ciaox
It's amazing to me that Janet Reno, the half-assed lawyer who can't appoint an independent counsel when one is warranted or at least act like a lawyer, wants to start an international thing called "LawNet", which sounds like the gayest thing in the world.
We already have an international crime fighting syndicate of sorts. Interpol. Sure, it's not as good as the Justice League or any other comic book thing. Hell, it's not even as good as Nick Fury... but I digress...
Where I do think that creating some sort of agency with oversight (at least, domestic oversight) to prosecuting computer crimes (outside the FBI - we don't want more civil rights violations...) would be a good idea, I'm not sure what can be done internationally. If it were set up like Interpol, which basically says to countries, "Hey, arrest that guy" and they go and pick that person up. That's the way to go.
Thank God Janet Reno will be out of a job next year.
At the end of 98 a group did a bulk scan of most of the internet for 18 common remotely exploitable security vulnerabilities. Here is a summary:
That's at least 450,000 vulnerable (read: r00table) hosts. Also remember that one vulnerable host if often enough to allow compromise of a whole network of machines. There is no reason for any machines to show up in this scan. Fixes are available.I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what people should be doing before setting up a "global, round-the-clock anti-cybercrime network". I fear that it might take a few more CDuniverses to shock business into taking security seriously.
Details are here: The Internet Auditing Project - It's actually quite an interesting read. Also features details on how one of thier highly secure linux boxes was cracked with an amazing super-crack. This is a good example of how one cracked host and bring down other secure machines.
--
Simon
Sam Adams kicks ass! If you waste your money on other brands that's your mistake.
This sounds more like a premise for a TV show more than anything.
"oh no! hackers are on the loose in the network!"
"No fear! CYBER-CRIME POWERS ACTIVATE!!"
a very very small 2X4...
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Agreed
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Personally, I wish the government would spend less time trying to crack down on miscreants and more time educating the public. Prevention starts at he end-user, Janet!
.45 and you would have been secure against that exploit.' ?
This statement annoys me to no end. So many people on this site are completely against the end 'User' protecting themselves from conventional crime, yet expect them to completely secure themselves from all harm when it comes to the 'net and their PC.
How would you feel if you got mugged and the response by the people you talked to was nothing but 'Well, you should have downloaded the easily available patch Remington
Either it is the end users job to protect themselves from everything or nothing. I vote for Everything.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Yes. I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse...
Your Don wishes root on your machine. For this favor, he will be our friend for life. Union problems, they may disappear...
With apologies to Mario Puzo, may he rest in pe ace
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
First, you rule out "financial crimes etc."? Why? Reno didn't rule them out, or did I miss something?
Second, the example cited in the article of breaking into a large commercial site and stealing people's personal and financial information and holding them for ransom, is illegal (and should be), if not everywhere, than in enough places that having international cooperation of police forces arranged in advance is both feasible and effective at combatting crime.
Crime is a Bad Thing, being safe, secure and protected are Good Things. I'm not in favor of abuse of police powers in meatspace and I share the concerns about cyberspace. But don't stick your head in the sand. Just like they trace phone calls of people who phone in bomb threats, they're going to be tracerouting packets of people who download other people's credit cards. In order to score more cheap political dividididends for our side, I say, "Thank you Janet Reno, you're doing a great job... let me work with you to make sure that people's privacy is in fact protected.
If so, there's a problem with your analogy -- software patches are free, and weapons are not.
If all levels of weaponry were free, and none of them could be used for evil purposes, then your analogy would hold.
However, weapons are not free, and they CAN be used for evil purposes -- unlike software patches.
Ever accidentally patched your TCP/IP stack with a SCSI patch? I thought not. Ever missed a target with a bullet? I thought so.
This doesn't mean that your underlying point is equally flawed, but you'll need to elaborate on it a bit more . . .
I have no
the government doesn't need, or have the sense, to educate anyone. what she is suggesting is not appropriate, but it would be better than the government educating anyone.
We don't teach doctors to keep people healthy, we teach them how to heal the sick.
Similarly, we don't teach lawyers how to prevent crime. We teach them how to argue about it after the fact. It is not in USDOJ's training that they should even consider how to prevent crime. Why do you think they are call them prosecutors?
What in the heck is wrong with trying to prosecute someone for breaking into my system?
Emmet in the story post seems to imply with his statement "Prevention starts with the end user, Janet!" that it's the victim's fault! So, I'm to blame because I'm actually trying to run a business and have neither the time to become a security expert nor hire one, and some asshole with too much time on his hands and not enough work decides to learn how to crack systems and targets mine.
Bullshit. That's like saying if you get mugged and beat up by some menacing brute on the sidewalk, it's your fault for wanting to live your life and not get a blackbelt. Reno and the police shouldn't prosecute the mugger because "prevention begins with the pedestrian". What a load of hooey..
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
She sure has a way with words:
"The Internet is indeed a splendid tool of wonder, but there is a dark side of hacking, crashing networks and viruses that we absolutely
must address," she said.
nice parallel structure. but wow, first its the information superhighway! now its a splendid tool of wonder! in a couple of years, i bet Janet will be claiming she invented it.
and this guy, here, very eloquent:
"It is perhaps not Big Brother we should be worried about, but big browser," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "We need to be fearful that the aggregation of information, if it is misused, is very terrifying."
"we need to be fearful that the aggregation of information is very terrifying"?
how very telling.
This is open to the public. I wonder how many points are really going to be represented. It seems that the speakers are all hands off or pro-government regulation. Is anyone thinking of attending? Would be nice to see a report on what occured.
ISOC CHAPTERS UPDATE
* D.C. CHAPTER'S PUBLIC MEETING ON PRIVACY
The Washington, D.C., chapter of the Internet Society will hold a public meeting on Internet privacy issues on 12 January 2000. Privacy is a broad topic that touches all of us in so many ways and raises lots of concerns. Some people are looking out for us, while others are looking at us. Is the government going through our e-mail and listening to all of our phone calls? If so, is that ok because of the threats of terrorism and gangsters? How much control should vendors have over the use and dissemination of information about us; how much should we? If you want to hear opinions on multiple sides of the issues, come to the meeting. It will be held from 7-9 p.m. at Booz-Allen at Tysons Corner, Allen Building, 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA. Speakers include Declan McCullagh, Washington bureau chief for Wired News; Kawika Daguio, Executive Vice President of the Finanicial Info Protection Association; and Mike Vatis, Chief of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. For more information on the meeting and for more detailed
biographies of the speakers see the dc chapter's site.
Give it up Reno--in a year you're outta there!
Prevention and education just isn't entertaining. It's hard work, and that's just not what America is about.
Cops ride-along-video shows, news, and movies of big crime make money.
Education costs money.
Maybe it's time we alter the way we think about online security. Instead placing the power and responsibility of protection in the hands of the government (which seems to be the way things are going), maybe we should *gasp* hold the companies responsible for their own security! Tight security = fewer crimes
I mean, come on! If you own a real world business, you don't depend on the police for the general protection of your business. You lock your doors, you pull down the metal shield in front of your windows (in NY at least). You DON'T expect to have police every 10 feet making sure robbers don't break into your store. If some regular CD store down the block took all the money they made and left it in an unlocked drawer with a simple lock on the front door, you wouldn't be hearing about it when the dumb asses got robbed. And if you did, you'd laugh at them. If CDUniverse was hacked it's their own fault. I congradulate the hacker on exposing the weakness of the business. Attempting to extort the money is BAD, but the cracking of the system is GOOD. You take active measures to ensure your own property's safety. At home, if someone breaks into your home, you greet them with a shotgun. Will this philosophy ever catch on for Internet businesses? Will we see a shift towards Gibson-esque corporate defense systems that track down the hacker and fry their machine (or worse)?
I personally don't want to see another crackdown on harmless hackers like in 1990. I highly recommend The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling for a good read on hacker history and to a degree, philosophy. And it's open source.
do the evolution
Do the Evolution
I can't hold a conversation with an AC; anyone nameful care to raise the issue?
--
Xenu loves you!
As I see it, about half of the internet "crime" wouldn't be considered crime in any other placement.
It is as if you were walking around town, only half of the buildings have closed windows, most buildings are missing doors. None of the cars are locked and they all have the keys sitting on the seat. You lean against a brick wall and suddenly you are inside the building. Most merchants have a pile of cash on the counter instead of using cash registers. Instead of fences, some businesses have small signs saying "Unauthorized Entry is Prohibited".
In some places, maybe most, it is your fault if you leave the keys in the car, unlocked, and it is stolen.
Legally, the operators of a server that is hacked, or the software designers, should be partly responsible if the vulerability has been known for a month or more.
For example, an ISP where I worked had a line ping flooded, but it was a 56k line, and they had source routing enabled on the routers (a vulerability known for 5 years at that time). Sure, the attacker was partly to blame, but so were we.
The problem with most "computer crime" prosecution that I have heard, either it is completely ignored, or the prosecution dosen't understand the network and they charge a person for mass murder when they are guilty of breaking and entering.
Education is definately needed.
We will deliver to them what they need to know when they log into AOL. We will build a really cool new command control center with security stuff and lots of blinking lights where Janet and other elected visionaries can fly in a helicopter and feel like they are doing their part in preserving the freedom intneded by our founders. And when were done with that, we'll build a new network where freedom is the rule and getting on takes more than the sheepish intelligence of our elected officials and business leaders.
I know many people that have been victims of crime in real life, but I don't know anyone, personally, that has been a victim of a cyber crime. If the government imposes this new security-network-whatever, will it be as flawed as the real life security network?
Get out of here! You got to be kiddin me! I was convinced that Janet Reno was an old man. Now you are trying to tell me that she is a woman? Maybe you have made a typo.
:-)
/Prevention starts at the end-user, Janet!/ Yes, this is true. Talk to the NRA about it. How long have they been around, and pushing so we can keep our right to bear arms?? They keep saying education reduces the number of firearm related injuries than anything else (see the section called "Education Is The Key"). But still the laws get more restrictive. OTOH, I almost welcome the LawNet or whatever it is. Looking back, these types of things have always made us smarter. One quick example, when all the parents seemed real hot on restricting what their kids could see on the internet. The kids said, "Okay, NP, I'll be a good boy/girl." Then they go installed another browser and go exploring with no restricions. LawNet (or something like it) may be coming. Oh well.... I don't think it will be so terrible... hell, it might even give us something exciting to play with.
-- Hi! I'm a
The article is quite useless to judge the intentions of what the agency should do. The reason is that no mention is made of what they want to do, and more importantly, Why. Do they want to set up an agency where people or companies can ask questions? Do they want to be a `public lawyer' which sues people/companies when people can't do it themselves? Do they want to indicate where there are omissions in laws? And which laws? Answers to the questions "Why" and "How" will indicate how usefull such an agency will be. And it will also show for who they are doing it -- for people living in the USA, or for everyone globally? For companies, for individuals or both? Or do they just want to map the current situation (which will be hard on itself)? My conclusion is that this article is a piece of propaganda, which mainly runs on sentiment (just look at the two examples). If they had given any good view on one of those examples, and said something *usefull* or new about it, I'd have more convinced that anything usefull will come out of this. For now, it seems just like some hyped babbling on a recent news item. -- Erik.
The BBC has an arti cle about Internet fraud which mentions 'national cyber-crime police units' in the US, UK and other nations, which would prsumably cooperate closely with one another. It's worth reading. Perhaps Janet Reno's proposal is more about combatting fraud than the occasional defaced webpage.
HOW can victimless crimes really be a crime? But more importantly WHERE do the police get the jurisdiction to give you a ticket in the first place since the roads ARE PUBLIC!?
Probably because you don't have the Manufactor's Statement of Origin for your automobile:
Vehicle Manufacturer's Certificate/Statement of Origin
Manufacturer's Statement of Origin - Key To ownership
When you buy a new autmobile, WHY does the goverment want you to surrender the MSO?
Title transfer
Licensing your new vehicle in Washington
LOUISIANA OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES VEHICLE REGISTRATION & TITLE
Massachusetts Title Law
Travelling is a RIGHT, Driving is a privilege. You DON'T need a license to travel. I travel without one, and have yet to be given a ticket for speeding or for driving without a license.
Here is a list of DOCUMENTED rulings.
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
Speeding is NOT a crime, UNLESS you went to the government asking for permission (DRIVER'S LICENSE) to use their property (REGISTERED VEHICLE.) If you don't want to be harassed by the good law officers, you can get an International Driver's Permit, which is valid in over 200 countries. No Socialist Slave Number is required.
Research the above links and see for yourself.Cheers
Script kiddies are criminals. They KNOW that what they are doing is wrong. I see NOTHING wrong with the FBI finnaly getting the technology and people they need to go after these criminals.
You know, of all the articles to post to, with such a defeatists attitude, one on civil liberties should be the last.
There is a difference between hacker and cracker. It's not just a word, any more so than nigger, faggot, heeb or any other slurr. It has a meaning, given to it a long time ago.
The definition of 'hacker' is quite elusive, but as such it gives us a sense of searching for identity - like any emerging culture. 'Cracker' OTOH is well defined and there are few who misunderstand it north of the Mason-Dixon line.
'Hacker' hails from doing things roughly, as with an axe or hack-saw. It suggests solving problems in the 'ad-hoc' style. (Contrast with 'Engineer', as few engineers see themselves as hackers and few hackers are formally schooled to be engineers) Over time, the definition evolved to imply a certain virtuosity to the method of problem solving - hence a hacker is a talented programmer.
The idea is an immortal virus. For so long as one person holds true to the definition of a word, and makes a point of educating the 'differently-informed', the idea lives, and the history of the word, and whence it came, is carried on.
'Communist' and 'socialist' are just words. Too few people stand up for what they really mean. The 'reat of the nation' has the incorrect connotation, and the misconception just gets deeper. If I were to claim to be a communist in the middle of town square, it would get the undesired sort of attention.
Freedom is a word, yet people have fought, killed and died for it over centuries. Liberty and privacy are just words. If you're so willing to give up on 'hacker', then why even take part in a discussion on 'privacy'. Let someone else (i.e. the Federal Gummint) define it for you.
I know that this is being very dramatic, but a bit of drama is needed IMO. As soon as you let someone who is uninformed define who you are, you cease to be yourself. If the general population is steered to see 'hacker' as nefarious, then they will regard hackers with fear and suspicion. Most of us don't warrant that attitude. This is why we keep on fighting for that label, for the clean reputation of the term we use to describe ourselves.
If the rest of the nation adopts the idea of abortion as a valid means of chosing the gender of a child, would that suddenly make it ok to do so?
What's more, with AOL TW in charge of the 'big picture', if it seems that the rest of the nation has accepted something, does that mean that they really did?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
> And btw, an International Driver's License is meaningless in Georgia (and probably most other states) unless accompanied by a valid license from another country
Thats not what the law officer's have told me.
The International Driver's Permit IS recognized in over 200 countries, the States included.
I personally know sovereigns who don't even bother with any kind of license. They freely travel.
Cheers
> HOW can victimless crimes really be a crime? >But more importantly WHERE do the police get the jurisdiction to give you a ticket in the first place since the roads ARE PUBLIC!?
> Funny, the thousands of people, including me, who have lost relatives to reckless drivers would hardly call it victimless.
The discussion was on SPEEDING, NOT ON the right to infringe on someone else's right to LIFE, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY.
Please don't confuse the two issues.
Cheers
Actually, Sin is not just a label, everything else comes from it, not the other way around. Sin is, simply, disobeying God. Unfortunately, we are rather prone to sin, and the only way to stop sinning is to allow Him to take over for us. We can't possibly stop sinning on our own. (Sorry for what most of you will consider Christian garbage, but I believe that this is the truth, and if anyone wants to argue with me without stereotyping Christians, I'm very willing to hear). But because people are selfish, and want to control their own lives (imagine that), God can't help them, so things continue to go along in the same way as always. The whole situation will continue to go down hill until the end of the world. So trying to come up with a grand social scheme is a lost cause right from the get-go.
The only real beer in the U.S. is imported.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up a little freedom for a little safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety."
just the facts ma'am ;)
_________________________
The police have never been interested in
eliminating crime, that would put them out of
a job. It is much more important to control or
appear to be in control of crime.
Massive crackdowns on illegal activities generally
coincide with elections, crooks getting too greedy and stupid, or as a means to focus attention away from some embarrassing issue.
Always remember that the police were always intended to keep the lower orders in check. The
Sherrif of Nottingham was appointed by King John
not the people.
Anything else is illusion. They really dont care
if we kill each other off as long as we dont
disturb their actual patrons and as long as we
do it quietly.
If you expect someone to try to hack your system, you need to break your freakin' budget with a $50.00 firewall program for Windoze, normal anti-virus software, and an easy to use freeware crypto program like PGP. Give one day to figuring out and installing this stuff-- it's kiss-your-ass easy and so user friendly it should come with knee pads "on" by default. Then your employees one hour each of informal training, and you will stop valdals BEFORE THEY STRIKE, which law enforcement CAN NOT DO.
What Janet fucking Reno and you want, is a universal wiretapping and data sharing standard for all the world's secret police, so that y'alls party and y'alls business associates can find and stop political dissent on the Internet.
Go get flamed. Whiny loser. Fed.
The original poster said that Reno's proposal would amount to nothing.He got a "5" and I thought it was worth pointing out that his argument was wrong, I think it will amount to something.
You, on the other hand, think we are dealing with Big Brother. That means, compared to him, you are on my side, you think that this is about something, not nothing. Since you disagree with him more than you disagree with me, you should post back in the main thread or pour your energy into trying to nitpick him to death, just as soon as you have finished with your nitpicking reply to this message, of course.
Really.
I have no
1. Jurisdiction. If a cracker in Michigan breaks into a firm's corporate servers in California, and steals a Delaware man's credit card number, all 3 states have claims on jurisdiction. Coordinating the investigation and (eventual) prosecution through one federal office makes plenty of sense.
2. Information gathering. LawNet could serve as a useful central bank for investigative units to share information with other units that are working on the same (or similar) cases. Using the above example, LawNet would provide the mechanism by which the California investigators report their findings regarding the intrusion, so the ones in Michigan know what direction to head in. Exchanging this kind of information quickly and effectively has huge potential benefits for the investigators.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
they dont care about reducing crime.. thats why they blabber endlessly about 'criminal hackers' because they know they can scare people into supporting their schemes like Echelon to gain more power.. its called 'divide and conquer'... they are the colonizers.. we and our friends who do not have as much experience with computers (the ones who pay attention to 6 o clock news virus alerts) are the natives that Reno, Clinton, etc are trying to buttfuck in order to become more famous.. more powerful.. more wealthy.. etc read 2600
1. Make money from banner ads through pro-Linux zealotry and one-sided paranoia.
uhhhh.... I can't remember the rest.
Not "Coresh". It is well known that Koresh had been raping teenage members of his cult. But I suppose the Art Bell/Rush Limbaugh/KKK kooks like yourself are too busy stockpiling weapons for Y2K (oops! nothing happened!) and hiding from black helicopters. Get a Life,
Slashdot linked to an article that used "hacker" incorrectly.
You are incorrectly assuming hat Janet Reno actually cares or really wants to stop cyber-crime(?define that please). In reality it is a budget publicty/election year stunt...If Reno was actually concerned wih legalities and indiviual rights the she would have stepped down after the branch-dividian fiasco, She is ABOVE ALL ELSE a POLITOCO...seeking a post under a new president possibly a new party even...she is scared for her nice CUSHY job...
besides jurisdiction there will always be people
and countries who will not go along with it:
why should they ?
Just pointing out the daftness of the Reno quote - this still has nothing to do with on-line privacy. Which is an issue, just not one that could be resolved by LawNet as described in the article.
It certainly does. But no more than in any other, non-e-commercy case, I'd have thought. But then I am British and don't 'get' how US state law works.
Of course in this case the cracker was not so much in Michigan as in Russia. So unless the 'international agents' mentioned were in fact hitmen there's probably not that much LawNet can do about it. :-)
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
I couldn't agree more. If your stupid enough to leave the door to your house unlocked you increase the chances of being ripped off. If you RTFM you will learn how to protect yourself. Research and put some effort into securing your system. The problem is nobody bothers to learn! Then they whine and cry when something happens!