Gilmore Commission Recommends Secret 'Cyber Court'

hillct writes: "Yesterday the House Committee on Science received newly released cyber security recommendations from Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III of the Gilmore Commission. Most disturbing among these recommendations was a call for "Establishment of a special 'Cyber Court' patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"." See also the Wired story. Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

Comments

Great

[All Dat]

Just what we need, more people who know little about technology trying to rein in technology.

Next thing you know, I'll be needed to license my palm pilot.

Can't they just keep up instead of trying to hold everyone else back?

Re:Great

[Winged Cat]

Next thing you know, I'll be needed to license my palm pilot.

What, you mean like a pilot's license? ;)

Re:Great

[thumbtack]

Ouch....

Re:Great

[xmedar]

Just what we need, more people who know little about technology trying to rein in technology.

US heads for Taliban style technology laws, News at 11

"* Youth"

[Hard_Code]

"Cyber Youth"
"Big Brother Youth"
"Hitler Youth"
...

I think the "Youth" should be able to make up their own minds how they want to contribute to society. Not be used as a tool for ruling elites.
Bah...that's my little rant.

Re:"* Youth"

[Hard_Code]

Mod parent down: -100000 brain fart

Re:"* Youth"

[ethereal]

"Electric Youth" - wait, that one was kind of catchy.

Re:"* Youth"

[sharkey]

How about the "Brown Mousepads"?

Re:"* Youth"

[antistuff]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Reagan+Youth

We need a secret court....

[M-2]

like a fish needs a ham sandwich.

Wasn't a BIG part of the whole freedom thing supposed to be to give us a TRANSPARENT legal system, so that EVERYONE could see what was going on? Isn't that the theoretical basis of the entire judicial system of the United States?

Isn't that why the hell anyone who's actually read history understands the sheer terror that the words 'Star Chamber' means?

I'm going to change my name to something like Cromwell, I think. Oliver Cromwell. That would be a suitable name for the US of the 21st century.

Re:We need a secret court....

[Ravensfire]

So you're willing to let a target know when they get wiretapped or traced, right? Surely such a person would of course ignore the summons to the court, and simply carry on business as usual.

Give me a break. Yes, you need something like this. You sometimes need the ability to get a secret court order. You've got to have people at the court who are extremely skeptical, and intentionally make it difficult to get the orders.

Re:We need a secret court....

[M-2]

We already HAVE that option. We don't NEED a completely new set of courts - use what we already HAVE!

And yes, we need more judges who hate the very IDEA of these things and require a tremendous amount of proof to allow them. The courts themselves are helping to cause this problem.

Re:We need a secret court....

[Tackhead]

> Isn't that why the hell anyone who's actually read history understands the sheer terror that the words 'Star Chamber' means?

Well, y'see, that's British history, and us 'murricans dun fought a war t'git away from y'all limey types. This hear's America, and we gunna teach our young'uns American history, dammit!

So the sad thing is that most of our countrymen never learned what Star Chamber was, nor why it's a mistake we should strive never to repeat.

There's a place for secrecy -- for instance, I have no fundamental problem with the philosophy behind FISA's secret court - if there's evidence which, if published, would result in the dissemination of classified material or other threats to national security - then so be it. And in such cases, the judge has a need to know everything, but I'd argue that the defence doesn't. It's a fine line, but we saw the system work in the case of the FBI's keylogger -- it took a while, but ultimately, enough information was released that the defence could prepare a defence, without compromising operational security.

(That is, the purpose of FISA is to prevent the openness of the court from being used as an excuse to bring things into evidence that would compromise national security -- just think of the damage that could be done by some twit just reciting classified information into the court record as part of his "testimony".)

But for Joe Skr1ptk1ddie - where the only "security threat" I can see is the publication of security holes that become widely known to the security community within hours of the crime (and the investigation won't happen for days, and the trial won't happen for months), this is worse than overkill, it's dangerous.

Re:We need a secret court....

[tdye]

Oh, brother. Of course you don't inform the subject of a wiretap that they're being monitored. The point here is that, even though a wiretap is secret, you still have to prove to a judge, in documents that are publicly available during a trial (if any), that there was 'probable cause' to perform the wiretap. What Gilmore is proposing is that you should be able to ignore probable cause, and that the govt. should be able to use secret evidence, unavailable even to the defense in a trial, to justify the wire.

Of course surveillance should be secret. The judicial branch, however, thrives only if the people trust it, and secrecy destroys trust.

Re:We need a secret court....

[elfkicker]

That's not even the same damn thing. I wonder if the Freedom of Info Act would allow someone that's being wiretapped to find out. But I digress. What we're talking about here is not the investigation where there is a need for secrecy. It's the hearing after the investigation, where the evidence is laid out and and you are judged by a jury of your peers.

Without examination of the procedings, the evidence, and the findings, you're giving a court far too much power. Our founders knew that because it's common sense. "Abosolute power corrupts absolutely."

Re:We need a secret court....

[dragons_flight]

Let's get a few things clear. The FISA court is not a trial court. It does not try and convict anyone. It's primary purpose was to create a secret means by which to approve the usage of CIA, NSA, and other (supposed to be) foriegn directed intelligence technology against people residing in the US. Court records are sealed so that you never know who they are spying on or why.

In theory, having a court to keep national security issues out of the public record, while building your case, doesn't sound like a bad thing. In practice FISA is a rubber stamp. The court has been invoked a few dozen times and only once denied an application for surveillance powers, and that time was because the adminstration reversed themselves and said they no longer wanted those powers, in that case.

I would guess we are looking at a similar rubber stamp for monitoring hackers. I don't think they would try to create a secret trial court, but I can imagine the government wanting a secret court to permit breaking into and monitoring hacker computers and communications. This bothers me, because hacking and national security seem to be rather far apart in the scale of things.

The principle behind the FISA court seems sound, until you realize it's a rubber stamp. Doing the same for hacking doesn't seem to make sense even in the first case. How much programming knowledge does one need before they revoke your right to privacy?

Re:We need a secret court....

[killthiskid]

Here's what scares the crap out of me:

Instead, Gilmore told the House Science committee, the commission will recommend that a "cyber court" be created with extraordinary powers to authorize electronic surveillance and secret searches of suspected hackers' homes and offices.

Extraordinary Powers!!! Ack! I think the whole Office of Homeland Security. is malformed idea.

It doesn't fit well within the govt. already existing structure, it duplicates many efforts, and it has yet to be determined exactly how & why it will function.

Secret courts... anything secret in the Govt. scares the crap out of me... and not only that:

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) suggested additional punitive measures. "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences," Ehlers said.

First there was the blurring and redifinition of the word 'hacker' to become the word 'cracker', and now hackers ARE being called terrorists!

Beware Linux hackers... you are terrorists!

Re:We need a secret court....

[ichimunki]

Although I've always been too chicken to ask for my FBI file under FOIA, it's clear from the FBI FAQ on it, that they review the file before release and will block out anything that could endanger an ongoing investigation. So no, you cannot ask for your file in an attempt to determine if you are currently being tapped. However, if you get your file and the whole thing is blocked out, you might want to implement some security measures. :)

Re:We need a secret court....

[jeffy124]

hacking and national security seem to be rather far apart in the scale of things.

I think you're wrong. If a hacker (unethical hacker that is) goes after a power grid, that's a problem for national security, as the hacker could knock out power for an entire region, or worse, the entire country. Having no electricity in the entire United States seems like an issue of national security to me.

Re:We need a secret court....

[COAngler]

So you're willing to let a target know when they get wiretapped or traced, right?

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. It's already legal to tap or trap-and-trace someone without telling him. Changing the venue of the court that signs the court order wouldn't change that. All it would do, is make it harder for a defendant to see the evidence against him when it actually goes to trial.

Surely such a person would of course ignore the summons to the court, and simply carry on business as usual.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's not hard for anybody to ignore a summons-someone blows off one of mine at least once every other week. All that happens is the court puts out a bench warrant for them.

Give me a break. Yes, you need something like this. You sometimes need the ability to get a secret court order.

Um, no we don't. Taps/traps-and-traces are already secret until they get introduced into court. Having a Star Chamber only means that the defendant wouldn't be able to see the probable cause used to justify the invasion when the case goes to trial. Never mind the legal requirements of discovery in the US...

But then, I'm just a dumb-shit cop. You obviously know more than me about what we need.

Re:We need a secret court....

[dragons_flight]

IF it is an issue of national security then you could use national security channels, including the FISA court.

That they want to create a special court for hacker crimes implies to me that they want to go after things that aren't covered by the current system, and by implication, aren't neccesarily matters of national security.

Re:We need a secret court....

[jeffy124]

ok, i see what you're getting at. If it were nat'l sec concern, I would think FISA would be the place to go for authorization of surviellience.

It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back

Re:We need a secret court....

[rking]

It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back

Lots of things are dangerous to others including, not surprisingly, lots of things that are illegal.

There isn't a special secret court for dealing with serial killer investigations.

There isn't a special secret court dealing with industrial pollution of water supply investigations.

There isn't a special secret court for dealing with burglary investigations.

All these things are dangerous to others. What's so special about hacking that it needs these special measures?

In the Wired article it says "Gov. James Gilmore (R-Virginia), the commission 's chairman, said Wednesday that federal judges have been far too sluggish in approving search warrants and eavesdropping of online miscreants."

The courts aren't issuing warrants as easily as the government likes so their solution is to have a secret court who's decisions can't be scrutinised act as a rubber stamp instead.

IF he really said what the Wired article claims he did then is frightening that people who think like that can be allowed to work in positions of power and responsibility.

Re:We need a secret court....

[bungalow]

I would guess we are looking at a similar rubber stamp for monitoring hackers.

That is true.

There is a purpose for requiring court approval for wiretapping / surveillance. That purpose is amendment IV:

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"

What is particularly disturbing is that, according to USC 50, Chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1803 (a), (last sentence) a judge doesn't have to comment when approving a surveillance request, but has to provide immediate, written reasoning behind a denial od such request.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1803.html - unlinked for the paranoid.

In effect, the judge either has to 1) rubberstamp it, or 2) make sure he has a damn good reason not to. This is hardly a resounding endorsement of "burden of proof".

Re:We need a secret court....

[Anonymous Coward]

They really should password protect the web form that controls the whole power grid.

Re:We need a secret court....

[xmedar]

But then, I'm just a dumb-shit cop.

Don't suppose you have any other cop freinds who are tech aware enough to campaign against this? I mean if the cops say they don't want the law then the politicains would look like fools to go ahead with it, if you'd do us all a good turn and talk to your union reps etc about it, maybe you could help everyone.

Re:We need a secret court....

[xmedar]

I don't think they would try to create a secret trial court, but I can imagine the government wanting a secret court to permit breaking into and monitoring hacker computers and communications.

Why bother with a trial? Just announce that there was a "gun battle" with those horrible "hackers" and classify all information relating to the incident, you just need some bod to have a press conference and tell the world justice has been done, its called a whitewash and thats what politicians do see Warren Commision, Nixon, Bill/Monica etc for why we should not trust politians or their cronies.

Re:We need a secret court....

[jeffy124]

There arent special courts for murder investigations, pollution, etc because they arent necessary in those arenas. Police are able to track down a suspect in a murder by matching the eyelash he drops at the scene or the bloddy fingerprint he leaves on the doorknob as he flees the crime scene.

Cyber-crime, OTOH, requires law enforcement to do their investigation a lot differently than traditional crimes, often requiring themselves to look through logs from ISPs (ie- access logs, email logs, etc) and other informational resources, including the suspected attacker's machine(s).

I think that such a court wouldn't be considered "secret" per se, but would be a secondary court available to law enforment on an as necessary basis for cyber-investigations. Chances are good this special court will be better because the judge would be specially trained and familiar with how laws apply online as opposed to a normal judge with no special knowledge in a normal courtroom.

Re:We need a secret court....

[Anonymous Coward]

What would you do? Revolt and institute a constitutional monarchy instead of your republic? :)

Re:We need a secret court....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fine line, but we saw the system work in the case of the FBI's keylogger -- it took a while, but ultimately, enough information was released that the defence could prepare a defence, without compromising operational security.


The question the court didn't answer was, what was so top secret about a key logger that recorded the next 100 characters after it saw the "pgp" characters typed in? That's not top secret, people, that's pretty easy to do and the defense should have had full power to question this evidence in trial -- because yes, you can tell the court the code does one thing, while it does something else entirely, something that even the court would be blind to without seeing the actual source code. It's kinda funny, almost nobody on slashdot trusts Microsoft software, and yet you trust the government with their's?

Re:We need a secret court....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that such a court wouldn't be considered "secret" per se, but would be a secondary court available to law enforment on an as necessary basis for cyber-investigations.

Yeah, whatever jeffy. You really need to learn when your arguments have failed and when to stop.

Re:We need a secret court....

[jeffy124]

actually i think you gotta learn how to not follow the crowd, think for yourself, and make your own informed decisions and opinions.
There's nothing wrong with me taking the stand of this is a Good Thing(tm). there's a lot of unnecessary paranoia atound here that comes up every time the slightest hint of surveillence comes up. I personnally dont have that paranoia because i trust the government when they say they are not spying on people, especially because of the 4th & 9th amendments and Reagan's Exec Order that explicitly bans spying on American citizens by the American gov't (with the exception of those decisions made by FISA's court).

btw- I used to work for the gov't. I know they're playing by the rules becuase I saw them doing so.

Re:We need a secret court....

[Anonymous Coward]

IF it is an issue of national security then you could use national security channels, including the FISA court.

That they want to create a special court for hacker crimes implies to me that they want to go after things that aren't covered by the current system, and by implication, aren't neccesarily matters of national security.

This makes sense, yet FISA is for Foreign Intelligence; by that logic, hacking in the United States, whether it can be construed as a matter of national security (which, considering how much our modern economy would be torched should we need to live our lives as we did 130 years ago, as a debilitating crack on power distro or Air Traffic Control would be) or not, would not be permitted to request the special priveleges granted by FISA court-requests. In other words, because it isn't allowed to use FISA court-privelages to handle any threat that is not related to foriegn intelligence, search-warrants must be obtained through the standard, Constitutionally-organised manner, and must be presented to the defence, should the investigation come to trial.

which leads us back to your second comment.

secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

Another? Do we have other secret courts? If we do, then they aren't very secret.

Isn't this a bit redundant?

[weez75]

The federal courts are equipped to handle cyber-terrorism or threats. In fact, they already handle a very similar thing: mail fraud. There are a million varieties of danger posed by use of networked systems. However, the basic premis of the federal courts having authority is that 1) it generally uses and affects entities in multiple states 2) it can pose a threat to national security. That being said, why do we need another court? It seems to me the old coots that wrote this thing called the Constitution already have this covered...

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[gorilla]

Before we worry about cyber-terrorism, can we at least establish that it actually exists?

Dispite dire warnings from the usual suspects, nothing since the Morris worm has had any significant effect on the Internet as a whole. Code Red & the mafiaboy attacks have had effects on some sites, but these have been self-limitting - the knowledge that Code Red is possible has resulted in people installing the patches, and made future occurances less likely. None of these are what I'd call terrorism either, any more than someone getting all their friends to flush their toilets or call the same phone number at the same time is.

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[onepoint]

>>before we worry about cyber-terrorism, can we at least establish that it actually exists?

Well if I remmember correctly, there was the situation of the credit card numbers that were held as ransom against payment. I think that person had 50K CCnumbers.

If that is not a terroristic attack against the ( sarcasm on ) "freedom of online shopping" ( sarcasm off ) then what is?

a person that releases a computer virus into a controlled set is doing lab work. if they release it into the world. Then they are a terrorist. An application ment to destroy or delete my computer data is the same as a person taking tossing a brick into my window. I have to start getting defensive.

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[mazur]

The federal courts are equipped to handle cyber-terrorism or threats. In fact, they already handle a very similar thing: mail fraud.

Precisely. And I think the only logical and acceptable legislation specifically concerning internet is the extension of existing snailmail and telephone(/-graph) laws. There is not much going on on the internet that has never been done before in another context, so simply extend the appropriate legislation to the similar internet instances, instead of inventing new, outrageously farreaching laws so you can later apply these new powers to the older similar laws. Because that is going to happen. "Hey look, we can enter and search any packet or computer on the internet, without as much as a warrant, we should have that right with respect to ... (mail/telephones/houses/pick a thing, anything) as well!". That kind of thing.

Stefan.

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[haruharaharu]

since the Morris worm has had any significant effect on the Internet as a whole

Nimda trashed a decent portion of the internet by overloading it to the point that router traffic couldn't get through. This caused widescale route flapping for a day or two which caused regional instability.

Earlier this year, a train fire in Baltimore took out a good part of the local network infrastructure - this could easily be much worse if someone attacked the fiber deliberately and in multiple places.

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

An application ment to destroy or delete my computer data is the same as a person taking tossing a brick into my window.

Um, if someone throws a brick through your window, it's not terrorism. It's vandalism. Let's not debase the language just because it's fashionable. And there's the rub: People want to call everything "terrorism" because they know the public will accept (right now) almost anything in the name of a crusade against terrorism.

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[onepoint]

>>if someone throws a brick through your window, it's not terrorism. It's vandalism.

Your right let me restate it slightly different.

If I am home, someone throws a brick at my window, window breaks, scares my family then I think it's an act to terrorise me or my family.

But if there is not a person home then it's just vandals.

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[Datafage]

Ooh, let's call mugging terrorism too. After all, I bet it's scary...

(inserted to avoid lame filter)

Re:Isn't this a bit redundant?

[onepoint]

No, No, you mis-understand. The key word ( I was admitting to an error ) is the word "terror" and the "ism" or "ise". the person responding to my first statement was correcting my grammer, ( also pointing out that some words get abused ). I inturn tried to used the words Terrorise and Vandelise properly.

>>Ooh, let's call mugging terrorism too. After all, I bet it's scary...

No mugging is robbery not terrorism.

-onepoint

Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[maggard]

For over 200 years the USA has suffered under it's impractical Constitution and the unworkable so-called "Bill of Rights". We need to move forward into a new era where we can compete with every tin-pot dictatorship and repressive regime on their own level!

Only criminals need fear this - you're not a criminal are you?

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[led]

That's all fine and dandy while you trust your goverment...
tomorow YOU may be the criminal if the goverment changes...
The taking of liberties and hiding information is the road to dictatorship, the us is starting to thread down that road, the terrorits will have won if you go that way...

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[FortKnox]

the terrorits will have won if you go that way...

Would the terrorists win?
Two points:

1.) Terrorism only thrives in a Democratic government. Simple Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare Theory teaches that.
If we are a Dictatorship, terrorism would die extremely quickly.

2.) The "theory" (or one of the reasons) the terrorists hate us is our aid to the Israelis.
Now if we are a dictatorship, we'd choose a side and help them win. Not only that, but the bombing of afghanastan would escalate into a much bloodier war, probably involving the death of many more innocents, to prove our new power.

I don't think the terrorists will win in this senario.

How will the terrorists win? If you carry a gun everywhere. If you are paranoid about everything. If you will do their bidding out of fear.

Now that this is said, lets lay off the terrorism talk. Its almost like everyone is using it to take an advantage.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[led]

In a dictatorship the state is terrorist... and the state will call terrorists to the people it finds more convenient...
In my country 30 years ago you could be arrested for speaking your mind, of course they would arrest you legally for not having a cigarrete lighter licence (or some other convenient law)...

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[maggard]

1.) Terrorism only thrives in a Democratic government. Simple Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare Theory teaches that. If we are a Dictatorship, terrorism would die extremely quickly.

Really? For much of the world the exact opposite is true. Where there is democracy you've an enfranchised public. Under an oppressive dictatorship you've not and terrorism is one of the few means of protest or causing change.

I think your lecturing us on your opinions is well intentioned but poorly thought out.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[GunFodder]

Exactly, and how can the US compete with banana republics without a secret court? That will lead to the single essential ingredient of every police state... the secret police. There isn't repressive regime out there that doesn't have an secret organization dedicated to ferreting out anti-government conspirators and other radicals.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[FortKnox]

In a dictatorship the state is terrorist

I see your point, and the state would be horrible (Stalin taught us that), but we don't have a similar definition of terrorist.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[FortKnox]

Really? For much of the world the exact opposite is true.

Lets separate terrorism with fear.
Yes, the government would instill fear, but that isn't terroristic. Terrorism is defined by a small group using fear tactics against a larger group (government). That's a really loose and poor definition, but I think I put my point across.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[Ravensfire]

2.) The "theory" (or one of the reasons) the terrorists hate us is our aid to the Israelis.
Now if we are a dictatorship, we'd choose a side and help them win. Not only that, but the bombing of afghanastan would escalate into a much bloodier war, probably involving the death of many more innocents, to prove our new power.


Errr, not exactly.

A primary reason that many groups quote is NOT the support of Israel, but the spread of western civilization from various countries that are changing the way of life in many middle-east countries.

We are changing their society - and that's what they don't like. As the most successful economy in the world (measured by size), our way of life spreads to many parts of the world. We firmly believe that free trade cures all ills, and that our society is the best form possible.

We tend to ignore that we are a mature society, with large resources and economies of scale. Our knowledge of marketing, manufacturing and distribution overwhelm many other countries. Free trade is great - when it's between two equals. Many western civilizations completely overwhelm the newer, smaller and less mature economies, resulting in a wider disparity in lifestyle and far too much suffering.

We don't kill people, we kill societies. Which is worse?

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[Amazing Quantum Man]

And even *IF* the reason they hate us/attack us
is because we support Israel, look at it this way.

WARNING POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE MATERIAL FOLLOWS
<POTENTIALLY_OFFENSIVE>
If a kid throws a temper tantrum because he wants something, do you give it to him? Of course not, because you don't want to encourage tantrums.

Look at the WTC attacks as the ultimate temper tantrum.
</POTENTIALLY_OFFENSIVE>

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can never put your point across with a poor and loose definition.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

We don't kill people, we kill societies.

Excuse me, but that sounds a trite paternalistic. We don't kill socieities. We offer options, we offer alternatives, and (most heinous of all) we offer an example. If the West is culturally overwhelming the rest of the world, well, they're buying the crap. They're making a choice.

To say that we should somehow censor ourselves and not "inflict" the spread of Western values (both noble and base), is yet again to set the West up as the arbiter of what is good and true for all. Oh, no, you can't have blue jeans... you're not ready for them yet.

I really don't see how that attitude would be any improvement. Currently, at least it's a choice being made.

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What part of this do the proponents of a secret court that would not be required to follow the probable cause rule fail to understand?

Re:Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[Datafage]

And if a kid throws a tantrum because his cousin is molesting him and no one believes him, is not doing anything because of the tantrum an appropriate response?

Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[Fatal0E]

I mean, come on. Realistcally I can at least empathize when the gov't says that sometimes it has to operate outside the legal system in issues of National Sec. I wouldnt want a suspected terrorist to know he's being monitored. I might fall under that same watchfull eye but that's a sacrifice I'd make.

But why would a hacker court need to be so secretive? If the gov't is afraid of a group of people being able to shut down and disrupt major networks, then those networks need to be secured, not the system for monitoring them and prosecuting them! I mean, those old farts in office invented that stupid saying of ounce of prevention, pound of cure!

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

And ...

How much of the Sept. 11 attacks were due to

a. cyberterrorism?
b. lax/nonexistent airport security?
c. lax/leaky immigration standards and processes?

Our leaders are very much going after the wrong
problems here, presumably to maximixe their
visibility over doing something useful.

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[tchuladdiass]

This reminds me of a little story (fictional, I hope)...

A company that produces traffic light control systems dicovered that they had a bug in their logic. You see, when a pedistrian would approch the intersection, and push the little button on the light post to activate the walk signal, all would work as expected... however, if the button was held for more than 10 seconds, the traffic signal would turn green in both directions, thereby causing a hazzardous traffic situation. Therefore, the company spent several million dollars on campain contributions and lobying efforts in order to get a law passed that made it illegal to press the button in this manner on this brand of traffic signal. They also had installed fingerprint scanners on all the buttons so that evidence could be collected to arrest and convict anyone who wanted to cross the street.

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[Teun]

Pretty clear to me; keep it closed source!
Security through Obscurity
is the signature of M$, the US government is infiltrated by M$ and this proposal shows how far they've gotten.

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[GunFodder]

I don't trust the government to operate outside the legal system. Usually they end up selling weapons to dictators or selling drugs to fund terrorists. If we condone that kind of behavior pretty soon we will have terrorists striking back at us...

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

you left out rescuing Iranian-held hostages.

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Security through Obscurity is the signature of M$

When did Microsoft buy the rights to that trademark from Novell?

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[xmedar]

b. lax/nonexistent airport security?

Perhaps you mean deliberate lax/nonexistent airport security instituted by the airlines with the approval of the US government (Clinton signed off on it) so they could make a few more pennies.

and you can add -

d. A failure of the US "intelligence" community to do anything about the people they knew were connected to Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda. Maybe if they were not so half assed about doing a good job, and were not riddled with double agents then the 11 Sept would not have happened. Unfortunately they arent going to change, laws like this will get passed and the state will become even more powerful and have evenless reason to do the Right Thing. These things usually resolve themselves with revolts / revolutions in the end.

Re:Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[GunFodder]

Right, after 400 days which wasn't soon enough to save one presidency but did promote another. And then Reagan turned around and sold arms to those same Iranians.

Yes, it is secret

[Green Aardvark House]

It's patterned after the Foreigen Intelligence Suveillance Act (FISA) Court, enacted in 1978.

From the Wired article:

Congress created the FISA court in 1978 to oversee foreign intelligence investigations that were too sensitive to take through the normal process. The FISA judges review the Justice Department's requests and, with the exception of one or two cases, have always approved them.

Because the FISA court meets in secret, and its orders are sealed, subjects are often unaware they're under surveillance.

Unlike more standard courts, FISA court documents are unaccessible to the general public.

So, even though the existence of the court is not secret, its actions are.

Beautiful.

[dave-fu]

Forget the right to a fair trial, hackers are threatening our country's very lifeblood! Or something equally dramatic.
The good news is that they won't be high-profile cases where there's some sort of onus on the government to come through in a big, excessively punitive way (are shoplifters forbidden to walk in stores after they've served their time? are murderers forbidden to be around people after they've served their time? embezzlers forbidden to be around company books after they've done theirs? then why exactly are mitnick et. al forbidden to be around computers/electronic equipment after they've served theirs?). The bad news is that we'll have a new branch of the government with a minimum of public overview running wild on an increasingly marginalized subset of society.

Re:Beautiful.

[arkanes]

Without agreeing with the bill (it's ridiculous), your points aren't valid - people convicted of emebezzlment and similiar crimes are quite often prohibited from working in the financial trade. When a crime depends on technical knowledge or privledged posistion, it's not uncommon, and not unreasonable, to deny the parole access to those posistions and the opportunity to excercise that knowledge - granted, they get a bit extreme in the Mitznick (and lets not forget Randall Schwartz), but the theory is valid.

Re:Beautiful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say no to bad cliches. The good news is that clearly you take the bull by the horns and make yourself happy as a lark in the process. The bad news is that better late than never might turn out to be the straw that broke the camels back and be easier said than done.

if they can do it so can we

[how_would_i_know]

"Instead, Gilmore told the House Science committee, the commission will recommend that a "cyber court" be created with extraordinary powers to authorize electronic surveillance and secret searches of suspected hackers' homes and offices."

Well... maybe we should convice some judge to create a new 'cyber congress' with extraordinary powers of resistance to soft money.

Yeah That's Just What We Need

[Greyfox]

Secret courts and a national ID card. We also need to be able to create laws and retroactively punish people under them, be able to jail people for speaking out against the government and be able to house troops in normal peoples' houses. Oh, and tax tea at 3x its normal price.

Re:Yeah That's Just What We Need

[Anonymous Coward]

The entertainment companies (read: beneficiaries of copyrights handed out by the public) are already working on a version of the "house troops in normal peoples' houses" deal. It's called the SSSCA and would force "technological protection" into new computers at the point of a felony gun.

And just the other day, Wired had a story about a RIAA attempt to get the anti-terrorism bills amended to allow copyright holders to break into other people's computers with complete immunity to lawsuits for any damage they might cause. Bet the guys who rob banks would love to get this type of deal: "Not only will the Government NOT send us to prison for armed robbery, but it will prohibit you from suing us to get the money back!"

Biased

[Reality Master 101]

A government anti-terrorism commission will recommend that Congress create a shadowy court to oversee investigations of suspected computer intruders.

"Shadowy"? Nice bias, Wired. I pretty much discounted everything in the article after that. It's clear that the writer of the article has an agenda that they are pushing.

But back to the topic: Where, exactly, does it say that this is going to be a "secret, accountable" court? It just sounds like a court that specializes in technology matters. Many Slashdotters complain that the courts are clueless when it comes to technology; why not have a court that specializes in these matters so they can make informed judgements?

Personally, I think hacking should be cracked down on HARD. Not life imprisonment, but at least, say, six months in jail.

Re:Biased

[dbrutus]

OK, you don't like the word shadowy and think it shows bias. How about the press release from the House of Representatives?

"
The Commission's recommendations regarding cyber security include:
...
Establishment of a special "Cyber Court" patterned after the court established in the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
"

Now the FISA court is notorious for having virtually no oversight and its specifically used only in cases of grave national security (I'm taking the government's word on this because I can't check it, which is the whole problem, isn't it?) where the fate of the nation can hang in the balance. Hacking cases, for the most part are not a case of national security, nor is the fate of the nation visibly changed whether police are required to have probable cause before they take down slashdot because somebody posted a deCSS haiku.

What, pray tell, is the possible justification in your mind to treat hack case evidence with the same paranoia as properly classified government secrets?

DB

Re:Biased

[markmoss]

Now, if they wanted to set up a "Cyber Court" which was like a normal court only with clueful judges, it would be a good thing. But apparently they want this special court just because it's too hard for the poor incompetents in the FBI and Justice Dept to have to actually show probable cause... AAAGHHH!

The one good thing about this -- after the Supreme Court tosses this out, they might take a good hard look at the FISA too...

Could be interesting

[Magumbo]

A cyber court should exist only online, and all cyber jurors should have a minimum of a BS in computer science, computer engineering or electrical engineering.

Re:Could be interesting

[Chundra]

This cyber court you speak of, it already exists. We call it slashdot. All we need to do is tie it into the legal system somehow.

Re:Could be interesting

[tomknight]

Heh.

Only if the BS mentioned comes from the rear of a bovine, not from a university.

Tom.

Re:Could be interesting

[Mad Marlin]

This cyber court you speak of, it already exists. We call it slashdot. All we need to do is tie it into the legal system somehow.

Yes, that is exactly what we need, a legally recognised Slashdot, where I get ``modded'' to 5 years in prison for using FreeBSD instead of the ever-so-worderfully communist Linux. Heaven help me if the court discovered that I don't want to kill Bill Gates on sight.

Re:Could be interesting

[richie123]

Trial by Slashdot Effect, if your web site goes down you dies, if it stays up you live. Sounds Like Sys-admin justice to me

Re:Could be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

A minimum of a BS?!! Get stuffed. I didn't go to university but I think 20 years of IT experience (programming, admin and support) is qualification enough.

Anonymous Coward to encourage numerous abusive reponses for posting as such. Ha Ha! Jurassic Park.

Re:Could be interesting

[scaryjohn]

Excuse me! I'm going to walk out of U of I with a B.S. in Economics and a B.A. in Psych... and two (or three) years experience working with computer networks from a variety of angles. I think i'm competant to discern the differences among a 5cr1Tp k1DD13, the writer of code redhackedbychinese!!, and Steve Jackson.

I think a ten-question qualification exam might be more appropriate.

Re:Could be interesting

[RickHunter]

Heck with a minimum of a BSCS. I know people who've gotten a BSCS who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. (I've been taught by PROFS who couldn't!) A minimum of four years of experience working in the tech industry as a sysadmin or coder (as needed for the case at hand) with a certant expertise in current technology (not just NT and not just Unix, for example) AND a provably detailed knowledge of civil rights and legal process in the USA. Or require a short course on said topic.

The last should, IMHO, be a requirement for regular jurors, too. But that's not likely, as lawyers love having impressionable, stupid blobs sitting in those jury seats. And guess who has a stranglehold on the USA's legal system?

Re:Could be interesting

[Glytch]

From what I've seen in the news, all Economics is BS.

Is there *any* cause for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have arguments (or links to arguments) for this crackdown? Have their been hacking incidents that resulted in people getting hurt/killed? How do they get away with equating hacking with terrorism?

I mean, I know the real reasons are grandstanding politicians and campaign contributions from internet companies, but what are the reasons they provide? I'd like to know what the arguments are so I can effectively counter-argue them, but the real arguments are really hard to find...

Good God

[Der_Perfekt_Drog]

All this hype around terrorism is bringing some really disturbing changes in this country. People are embracing fascism in a way I'd never thought America capable of. How is sacrficing our liberty, freedom, and personal security to a bunch of shadowy government agencies and courts which can kick in our doors in the middle of the night and haul us off to jail in any way a victory over the forces of terrorism? One of the reasons we're a target is because of the freedoms we have, and our response is to become a repressive police state, like the ones that sponsor the terrorists in the first place? Every time I hear about "The Office of Homeland Security" I hear echos of "The Fatherland" and "Motherland" of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, respectively. This is not what I want to think of when I think of "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We might lose the war against freedom in the process of winning the battle against terrorism. I'm afraid for the future. Canada's looking better and better...

Re:Good God

[Anonymous Coward]

quote:One of the reasons we're a target is because of the freedoms we have ...
question:Don't you think that is because of bad foreign policy of USA?

Gratuitous Simpsons Quote

[s20451]

Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

Lisa: It's a rhetorical question! ... Do you know what rhetorical means?

Homer: Do _I_ know what _rhetorical_ means?

Two good points, actually.

[Stonehand]

1. The article specifically mentions that one problem with putting these cases through the general court system is that the technical details are important, but often not terribly understood. A specialized court could be composed of jurists who have technical knowledge, which IMHO is something that would be welcomed instead of blasted.

2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?

Re:Two good points, actually.

[BCoates]

2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?

Wouldn't any investigation need to be secret? How is this different from, say, a racketeering or murder or fraud investigation? Should we have secret courts for them, too?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to apply here.

Re:Two good points, actually.

[Dexx]

I've got no mod points, so I'm agreeing. I'm normally against such things, but I like the idea of a specialized court for cybercrimes, provided there are a couple things added:

1. Education. If it's a cybercourt, how about some cyberknowledge for it's memebers.

2. Accountability. It shouldn't be all secret, but there should be some sort of check on the power. I've got no problems with this court authorizing network surveillance, as long as the details come out in a reasonable amount of time. I'd rather it was a specialized cybercourt than a normal court which has no clue..

Re:Two good points, actually.

[btellier]

2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance.

You missed the point, as many people have today. In any FBI/local PD investigation they never tip off the subject that they're being tapped. The point of this law is that they don't necessarily have to have probable cause to originally install the tap.

They merely have to have some gut feeling that you're doing something bad to begin electronic surveillence. If it turns out that you are doing something bad, they can go to the courts later and say "See? We knew he was doing something but just couldn't prove it without the tap." Under the current system they have to have probable cause with conventional means proved to a judge to get the tap.

This bill gives the FBI the power to cut out the legal system and act like cowboys.

Re:Two good points, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Education. Cyberknowledge. Good idea.

Let's see...who would qualify? Gates? Ellison? Case (he seems to be one of Gilmore's buddies, after all)? How about Gibson?

Too expensive? Maybe some of those AOL lobbyists could be put into service. They must be pretty cyberknowledgeable.

Perfect.

AC

Re:Two good points, actually.

[Winged Cat]

Yeah, but: by their logic, we should have secret courts for all investigations. "We suspect this dotcom must be laundering money or something, because they refused our buddy's offer to buy out their business for $1000 (even though the office hardware alone is worth more than that). But of course we can't run an effective investigation if anyone knows we're investigating them. Oh, yeah, and we're outsourcing this particular investigation to our buddy's firm. No, we're not particularly concerned that they'll use the investigation to find out the dotcom's customers and harass them into switching to our buddy or at least stop buying from the dotcom. But how could we run this investigation if that became public knowledge?"

Re:Two good points, actually.

[shepd]

>A specialized court could be composed of jurists who have technical knowledge, which IMHO is something that would be welcomed instead of blasted.

So why don't they just ask for locksmiths for jurors next time someone is accused of B&E?

Because they don't portray a fair image of American society. The same way that a surprising number of the "computer elite" are Atheists and "information must be free" types. Maybe that's good, maybe not. But we, as computer people, don't get to decide that. Society at large does.

Too bad society at large doesn't even bother to vote (Something I think should be required before you are eligible to be on a jury -- and if you don't want to vote, that's fine. Send the ballot back with "No Confidence" written in the write in portion.)

Technical details need not confuse the issue. Computer issues aren't that hard to explain if you throw out the jargon and get a lawyer with a clue talking about it.

Re:Two good points, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too.

No, it shouldn't. I mean, yes, point 1 would be a good thing, but you completely screwed yourself with point two.

When you start throwing around the word "secret" in the context of "government", you better be talking about National Security, not looking for a new way to break the 4th Amendment.

If you instead say, "sealed", such as a "sealed" wiretap order. Then you don't need a "secret" court to handle it. And that's where you're confused.

Of course we don't

[alewando]

There is precisely one justification for the secret courts established under the Foreign Intellgence Surveillance Act: national security. The secret courts that meet in that jurisdiction concern themselves with matters of espionage and highly sensitive information that would jeopardize national security if made public.

I personally can't stand it. The 5th amendment and 6th amendments clearly lay out due process and the rights of the accused who stands trial, and few if any of these guarantees are honored by these secret tribunals. There is no textual basis for a national-security exception to any of the Bill of Rights, and it flies in the face of fundamental principles of fairness.

However, at least with national security, we have a really damn important interest being protected; if anything would justify tearing up the Bill of Rights, it would be on the level of national security. But what in tarnation is there to protect in a cyber court? Trade secrets? The integrity of corporate networks? Is this truly something so pernicious and of such overriding importance? Hardly.

They've got their national-security exception. If it's "terrorism" and it's conducted by foreign agents, then the Foreign Intelligence court already has jurisdiction. If we go down this path, then nothing will remain protected under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, and that is a very scary prospect.

Hooray for corporate interests, indeed.

Re:Of course we don't

[jmauro]

There is precisely one justification for the secret courts established under the Foreign Intellgence Surveillance Act: national security. The secret courts that meet in that jurisdiction concern themselves with matters of espionage and highly sensitive information that would jeopardize national security if made public.

This is a really weak justificaton. None of the other rights has any sort of limitation, except if the right infringes on another right. National Security is almost always a cover for something that someone has screwed up or something that if known the public wouldn't buy at all. Or in the worst and most unfortunate case to take away constitutional rights because no other means of accomplishing that task is available. If the government is a government of the people and for the people, there should be no need for things to be classified from the people. Worry about our plans falling into others hands? Not really, because the others either know the plans already or that we should have plans that are so fool proof that knowing them will show the other side the invetablity of their actions will lead to them losing. We don't except secrecy in information security plans, why should it be all that different for physical security plans? The information is needed for all those conserned to make an informed descision.

Re:Of course we don't

[OldAndSlow]

"If the government is a government of the people and for the people, there should be no need for things to be classified from the people."
Are you arguing that it was wrong during WWII of the US and Britain to classify the fact that both the German and Japanese codes had been broken?

"Worry about our plans falling into others hands? Not really, because the others either know the plans already or that we should have plans that are so fool proof that knowing them will show the other side the invetablity of their actions will lead to them losing."
When you play poker, do turn all your cards face up before the betting starts?

There is a lot of hysteria here about the erosion of rights. I am a bit hysterical about it myself. But remember that the US is very frightened right now. We are effectively at war. And if you read history, you will learn that the US has often suspended rights during wartime. Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the granddady of all rights) during the civil war!
But once the country feels safe again, rights get restored. It feels crappy now, and it may be the end of the Republic, but things may get better later.

Re:Of course we don't

[Anonymous Coward]

However, at least with national security, we have a really damn important interest being protected; if anything would justify tearing up the Bill of Rights, it would be on the level of national security.

Totally wrong, nothing would justify tearing up the Bill of Rights. Eg. suppose America's government spirals into totalitarianism, it is the Constitutional duty of the citizens to overthrow such a government. However, in this situation the government would claim they were acting in the interests of national security in abolishing the Bill of Rights and executing all those who were attempting reform.

Re:Of course we don't

[jmauro]

Are you arguing that it was wrong during WWII of the US and Britain to classify the fact that both the German and Japanese codes had been broken?

They're a differemce between national security and just shutting up about something. This is part of that difference. Most things that fall into the former do not come anywhere closer to something a long the lines of the latter

There is a lot of hysteria here about the erosion of rights. I am a bit hysterical about it myself. But remember that the US is very frightened right now. We are effectively at war. And if you read history, you will learn that the US has often suspended rights during wartime. Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the granddady of all rights) during the civil war! But once the country feels safe again, rights get restored. It feels crappy now, and it may be the end of the Republic, but things may get better later.

The only problem with this analysis is that we're not at war. What country are we fighting, were is the declarion of war. A war has objectives, targets, end games. This current "war" has none of these things. And do these national security issues and suspention of rights really make us safer? What is the threat and will these rights prevent the threat from occuring or is it really just an excuse to spend big on defense and give the Justice department leaders what they really think they need. Will the current ideas stop harm from occuringo or will those wanting to do harm, just find different ways to cause harm. Suspension of Habeas corpus by Lincoln was to prevent Maryland from joining the Confedrecy and then automaticly losing DC. What does this cybercourt prevent? How does some kid messing with a computer fall into this bounds? Ask you self why this is needed? Cyberterror is always been a completely silly idea to me. If you don't want your computer system hacked, don't put it on the Internet. Don't bet on maybe it will get better, because it never works. All we can do now is prevent it from getting any worse. One can only hope the Supreme Court knocks some sense into the other branch, but that is probably too much to ask.

Gilmore

[fanatic]

As the first Governor in the union to sign UCITA, Gilmore is a certified shit. I don't trust ANYTHING this jerk says.

Re:Gilmore

[GigsVT]

His term is almost up, he isn't running in november.

Re:Gilmore

[Anonymous Coward]

He CAN'T because in Virginia, you cannot server in consecutive terms....

Ummm... already in place.

[FortKnox]

Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

I'm assuming you aren't including the courts of judgement under the juristiction of the trilateral commission? Icarus is already watching you, and soon you'll be in the secret court of the illuminati. The US government is just trying to mimic this.

If we could only locate the aquantus hub and destroy it...

Re:Ummm... already in place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's amazing how many things from Deus
Ex *are* coming true. Ok, so they bombed the
WTC instead of the statue. We have Anthrax instead of Grey Death, Cipro instead of ambrosia.
But Bush did recently appoint a new director of
FEMA, and make FEMA responsible for terrorism.
I think we need to find the prophet who wrote
the script and see what else he thinks might happen :).

Let him know...

[Hallow]

Go to Gilmore's site, and let him know what you think through his feedback from. ESPECIALLY if you are from VA. Try and keep it calm and rational though. Enough voices speak up, and this won't happen. One senator has changed his mind already, in part no doubt to some geeky persuasion.

Hamstrung?

[gibbonboy]

"Police investigations are currently hamstrung by a lack of "effective procedures and understanding by many in the judiciary concerning the nature and urgency of cyber security," Gilmore said."
Yeah, hamstrung by silly little things like the truth, good investigative practice, and probable cause. Then we can't see them just trolling the waters to see who they can bust. Laws prevent this on everything from a traffic stop on up to murder. It really is a case of the law separating common people from justice.

Not another FISA

[ardran]

I reserve a certain amount of cynicism towards "The Government is Out to Get Me" and related mindsets, but FISA is one thing that scares the living fuck out of me.

The idea that a similar court (proceedings so secret that the accused doesn't get to know the charges; has denied only *one* wiretap request in its history) is needed to deal with computer crime is nuts.

A couple of links:
http://www.ainfos.ca/98/aug/ainfos00031.html
http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.court.html

Slippery slopes and poor logic

[raumdass]

Next time someone tries to say that the slippery slope argument is an invalid one in regards to the "adjustment" of ones liberties, remember this:

Clinton passed the Affective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism act, that amongst other rather non-liberal ideas made it possible to hold a non-US citizen for as long as we like, without letting them know the charges or evidence against them, and allows us to try them in what amounts to a secret court. You combine this with the legislation passed and pending referenced in the article and it doesn't take a political scientist to see a pattern.

So much for jurisprudence. Now we look to aim this thinking at "hackers"? We want to equate hacking with terrorism? To even mention someone damaging a computer system and killing thousands of innocent people in the same breath only serves to trivialize those that have died at the hands of real terrorists.
So what's next? If you protest the WTO, does that make you a terrorist? How about standing up for the rights of others, or god forbid, the planet? How about interfering with commerce by say, trafficking in copyrighted material?

Everyday I hear of more and more extreme measures to combat "terrorism". What point will there be in protecting our country if what we are left with is a government as totalitarian as those we claim to oppose?

~raum

Re:Slippery slopes and poor logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother.

Re:Slippery slopes and poor logic

[actappan]

Hear Hear.

It's your responsibility as a US citizen to watch out for your own rights.

Join the ACLU.

Write your congressperson.

Whine and complain, as long as you're right.

Ze Office Ov Homeland Zekurity

[isotope23]

Welkommen!
Papieren Bitte!

I got chills the first time I heard of the OHS.....

But hey this time we use barcodes instead of
primitive tattoos, and everyone will get one.

My only question is, who is Darth Vader?
Ashcroft or Ridge?
Chenney must be Palpatine

They *Almost* have a good idea...

[LordZardoz]

The one thing in the wired article that make sense is that at the present, The Powers that Be (Judges, Police, Etc), all too often do not understand the nuances and details of computer related crimes or other legal matters. This is something that should be remedied. It applies not only to the stereotypical hacking, but also to digital copyright.

I do not think that they should create a secret court. I do think that they should go out of their way to obtain 'expert' judges who know what the signifigance of the matters they preside over.

After all, a denial of service attack is not in the same league as flying a plane into a building. But it is certantly more serious then shoplifting or other petty crime.

END COMMUNICATION

I think what he really means...

[withak53]

"Police investigations are currently hamstrung by a lack of effective procedures and understanding by many in the judiciary concerning the nature and urgency of cyber security,"
Should read: "Police investigations are currently hamstrung by the citizens rights and the Constitution"

Gilmore's clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

He's one of the clueless people who brought us UCITA and other lovely bits o' legislature.....

He's about as cyber-saavy as an Amish farmer.

I'll sure as hell be glad when his term finally runs out at the end of this year.....
He's also screwed the state over in many ways because of his dumb little car tax. *growl*

Re:Gilmore's clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up!

Need to Contact Each Member of Science Committee

[idonotexist]

According to the article, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) stated: "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences," Ehlers said.

Probably the best thing any person can do is to contact each and every member of the House Science Committee who will consider this proposal. The members include:

Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Constance A. Morella, Maryland
Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania
Dana Rohrabacher, California
Joe Barton, Texas
Ken Calvert, California
Nick Smith, Michigan
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dave Weldon, Florida
Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota**
Chris Cannon, Utah
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Gary G. Miller, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois
Mike Pence, Indiana
Felix J. Grucci, Jr., New York
Melissa A. Hart, Pennsylvania
J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, RMM*
Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
James A. Barcia, Michigan
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Lynn N. Rivers, Michigan
Zoe Lofgren, California
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Nick Lampson, Texas
John B. Larson, Connecticut
Mark Udall, Colorado
David Wu, Oregon
Anthony D. Weiner, New York
Brian Baird, Washington
Joseph M. Hoeffel, Pennsylvania
Joe Baca, California
Jim Matheson, Utah
Steve Israel, New York
Dennis Moore, Kansas
Michael M. Honda, California

Time for Sesame Street again.

[Tackhead]

From Wired:
> Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) suggested additional punitive measures. "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences,"

Let's see here...

• Scanning port 137.
  
• DDOSing eBay.
  
• r00ting j00r b0x3n and writing 4LL J00r B4$3 R B3L0NG 2 US on your website!
  
• Flying three 767s, fully-loaded with fuel, into office buildings, murdering 6000-7000 people in the process.

"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong."

I'm gave up expecting wisdom out of our Congresscritters years ago. As for their ability to grasp complex technological and constitutional issues, that's also hoping too much.

But at the moment, I'd settle for a demonstration that they're capable of understanding Sesame Street.

Re:Time for Sesame Street again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unauthorized flying of airplanes can kill 6000 people. Why can't someone concieve unauthorized computer access to do the same thing? I mean, all control systems are handled by computers.

But, isn't that part about killing people using unauthorized whatever already covered by laws?

Re:Time for Sesame Street again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unauthorized flying of airplanes can kill people. Why can't someone concieve of some unauthorized use of computers to do something similar. More so, because of the fact that all of control systems are now controlled by computers (though most are not connected to the internet, I would think).

Transparency.

[AftanGustur]

What we need, and now more than ever, are laws that bind the police/FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever, to disclose all information on surveilance/monitoring to any and all persons who were subject to it, immediately when the the investigation is closed, and no longer than 5 years after it took place.

That is in the interest of the people.

Slashdot is a terrorist organization!

[NineNine]

Slashdot is a terrorist organization. The link to the article for this story was a web server for the US House of Representatives, and since it's been Slashdotted, that constitutues an "attack". Looks like Taco should be expecting a knock at his front door by some men in suits.

Just because its Secret does not mean its bad.

[Lord Hugh Toppingham]

I realise that many of us here on slashdot care about privacy. I am one of those people. However as a US citizen, I am also directly in the firing line of any lunatic with a grudge (e.g. Osama Bin Laden).

On the whole I think the American people have far too much mistrust of our government which after all is elected by us, and fully accountable to us every four years at the ballot box.

Every day we trust people better qualified than ourselves to do tasks for which we do not posess the required skill. (piloting a plane, cooking our hamburgers etc etc). Why should we be worried about a bit of secrecy when the national interest is threatened ?

Sounds to me like objectors to this scheme are siding with the terrorists. I fear the fundamentalists in Afghanistan far more than any suit in Washington.

I would even argue as this guy at adequacy does that perhaps we need a few more of our 'freedoms' re-evaluated in the light of recent event.

Re:Just because its Secret does not mean its bad.

[itachi]

You can re-evaluate _your_ freedoms. I'll keep mine, thanks. My freedoms aren't yours to sacrifice. Tell me I'm siding with the terrorists, I'll tell you I'm siding with the Bill of Rights.

itachi

Why oh why?

[M_Talon]

The reason for the FISA court is intelligence and security. I don't understand why that would be neccessary against domestic hackers. Are you saying we need secrecy against our own people? That smacks of a government not for the people and not by the people. This just sounds like more paranoid prattle that furthers someone's agenda in the wake of a major tragedy.

I've got a good recommendation for a law. Mandatory debate in both houses, a mandatory review time, and possibly mandatory vote by the people on any law that is being pushed to increase national security in the wake of the tragedy. Yes, we need to tighten things up, but the public should be aware and able to have their voice heard above the political din. I wish we could completely trust our representatives, but they're people too, and checks and balances need to be in place to keep them from acting irrationally...and this recommendation is a fine example of said irrational acts.

Re:Why oh why?

[tdye]

Thank God for the Supreme Court. Conservative they may be, but that usually means 'strict constructionalist'. Bad news for abortion, good news for civil liberty...

And the Committee's Chairman...

[idonotexist]

If you are pressed for time, at least contact:
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert, New York

Chairman Boehlert's homepage is here.
His email address is Rep.Boehlert@mail.house.gov.

Contact information:
10 Broad Street
Utica, NY, 13501
315-793-8146
315-798-4099 (fax)
Toll-Free in NYS: 800-235-2525

2246 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3223
202-225-3665
202-225-1891 (fax)

Irony

[maggard]

Usually I'd bait you, or make fun of you, but this isn't a particularly funny subject even if I did use mockery.

For the insight-impaired I was being ironic.

Re:Irony

[led]

No bait here, my coment was made because your irony was moderated "Insightful" at the time...
A funny moderation wouldn't have started my furious typing...

Re:Irony

[maggard]

... your irony was moderated "Insightful" at the time

It depends on how you view words.

Personally I feel it's far more insightful in that it comments on the issues involved and some of the mindset relevant them "Haha that's so funny I gotta remember to tell my brother" stuff.

YMMV

Fascism

[wiredog]

From Merriam-Webster:
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

That may apply on certain lefty college campuses in the US, but not in the country as a whole.

Re:Fascism

[Der_Perfekt_Drog]

Maybe "fascist" was the wrong word to use, but I meant more that people in America seem to be more willing now to sacrifice some of their freedoms and liberties in order to gain security. I know this is a reaction out of fear (which I can understand, even if I tend to disagree with some of it), but it really makes me nervous that disagreeing with the government is now seen as unpatriotic and inappropriate. I think the anti-terrorism legislation that has been enacted, or is pending, is overly broad and gives the government too many powers normally associated with police states (detention of foreigners without trial, expanded wiretapping, etc). The fact that congress seems to be simply rubber stamping them (since when has Cogress passed laws unanimously, or with only one dissenting vote?) is simply ominous...

I digress, but the point was that the United States seems to be running headlong towards becoming a police state (a noted hallmark of fascist regimes). I don't think we'll see a dictator in the White House anytime soon.

Re:Fascism

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

That may apply on certain lefty college campuses in the US, but not in the country as a whole.

This IS true, if by "the country as a whole" you are including the sadly uninformed and apathetic general populace. The Federal Government, on the other hand, is definitely showing signs of heading in this general direction.

The trends of giving up (or having given up FOR you) personal rights, priviledges, and freedoms (fair use? works entering the public domain after a "limited" period of time? Due Process for alleged "cyber-crimes"? Privacy?) to a national government for the benefit of that government and the promise (and what is a politician's promise WORTH these days if you're not a wealthy campaign donor?) of a little more 'security' from an evil empire of terrorists, drug traffickers, and video pirates (to the benefit of corporate entities and governmental agencies) sounds like it fits the definition you list reasonably well.

"centralized autocratic government"? While arguably there won't be any single individual in the federal government of the US any time soon with personal dictatorial power, certainly having dictatorial power in a handful of federal-level agencies isn't too far from that.

"Severe economic regimentation"? When was the last time you noticed how much it costs to hire a lawyer to defend you against a bad law or false accusation? Or, for that matter, pay for each and every use of a work of "intellectual property" (granted, this isn't yet the usual case, but can anyone really deny that's the direction current law and corporate policies seem to be headed steadily?) Or to lobby for laws (or repeal thereof) that are favorable to YOUR rights? Sounds like pretty severe economic regimentation to me...

"Social regimentation" may be a bit of a stretch...but then again - "consumers"? "hackers"? "corporate entities"? Lately, these seem to be distinct groups when referred to by media outlets and, sadly, a lot of individuals. They've been seeming pretty 'regimented' to me lately - I don't recall seeing any hints that a "hacker" might also be a "consumer" (or, for that matter, a corporate entity such as Microsoft), or vice versa.

"Forcible suppression of opposition"? When an organized group of armed government-appointed people can secretly tap your communications, easily obtain permission from other government-appointed people to kick down your door, confiscate your possessions, and require you to submit to incarceration on pain of death (how easy might it be to get shot while "resisting arrest"?) and require payment of large fines AND legal fees for "copyright violations" or violation of Federal Law (e.g. DMCA) because you made a backup of a DVD to watch on your Linux laptop...well, sounds like "forcible suppression" to me, even if there usually aren't tanks involved.

So, in short, while we may not YET be a LITERAL fascist state, it does seem to be the direction the US Federal Government is slowly but surely moving lately. No, things are "not so bad" yet, but I'd rather not wait until they are to worry about them and try to stop things from getting there, because then it will be too late.

Re:Fascism

[itachi]

I dunno, I think that fascist does apply in this case. All the idiots who are saying "sure, take my rights away, as long as we're doing this for the children/nation" Which is really the heart of Fascism. I mean, it's not the same as Italy of Germany in the 1930s, but it's a lot closer to those two than is comfortable...

itachi

Re:Fascism

[Cheesemaker]

I think the word you mean wasn't "fascist," but "flashist", which of course is a hint at your obvious propensity towards public nudity.

Re:Fascism

[Der_Perfekt_Drog]

Hey...we prefer the term "garment-impaired." Horse-thief!! I bite my thumb at you!!! :-)

Wow...I don't know which of us needs sleep more...

Re:Fascism

[Cheesemaker]

Jeez, you must be like trippin' or something. Holy Jesus! What are these god-damn horse theives!

How do hackers = terrorists?

[tdye]

I, for one, and appalled and disgusted that anyone would suggest that any computer hack could possibly rise (or sink, as it were) to the level of a terrorist act. I challenge the Senate to ask the people of New York if they feel that 'Code Red' is a threat of the same, or even slightly similar magnitude.

It is an insult to the memory of all those that have died to suggest that any hacker could cause enough destruction and fear to be labelled 'terrorist' and treated accordingly. Anyone who says otherwise should be forced to try and explain their case to the family of a dead NYC fireman.

For more in this vein (and just in case you don't hate the RIAA enough yet) check out this editorial:

How Virginia voters can help shut down Gilmore.

[supabeast!]

-Disclaimer: This will come off as an attempt to get support for a certain democratic gubenatorial candidate to some people. Please realize that I hate politicians in general, and only want to see Gilmore lose his standing because of the way he handles himself.-

Jim Gilmore is currently the chairman of the republican national committee. Almost all of his political power stems from this, because as governor of Virginia Gilmore has burned quite a few bridges and royally pissed off many important Republican politicans (You can read about the details here.

His unpopular activites are now causing other Republicans to want him out of power in the RNC, and they are threatening to oust him if he cannot get Mark Early elected Governor in his place this fall. Unfortunately, the Early campaign has been terribly mismanaged, and Early is a rather unpopular figure with Republicans, Democrats, and Virginia voters. Many people in politics and the press have already declared Democratic candidate Mark Warner the winner of the election. By voting for Mark Warner, you can help the Republican party finally be totally sick of Jim Gilmore and cast him out. Please do.

Re:How Virginia voters can help shut down Gilmore.

[GigsVT]

Or vote for Bill Redpath and Gary Reams, the libertarian candidates, if you really give a fuck about freedom.

Re:How Virginia voters can help shut down Gilmore.

[supabeast!]

Bill Redpath has some nice ideas, but cutting all state funding for higher education is crazy. From his website:

"For higher education, I propose a complete separation of school and state. General fund subsidization of colleges and universities, which totals $1.545 billion per year, which is about 13% of the Commonwealth's General Fund budget, amounts to a perverse redistribution of wealth from all of society to students who tend to come from more affluent families and are likely to be more affluent in the future due to their college educations. Funds to higher education from the Commonwealth's General Fund budget should be reduced to zero."

Even a libertarian's lust for lower taxes should have limits, and attacking state-funded colleges crosses the line.

Gary Reams on the other hand, is a great guy and will be getting my vote, but he is not running for Governor...

Regarding Gov. Gilmore:

[elbuddha]

This is the same Gov. Gilmore who shoved UCITA down the throats of the Virginia Legislature like it was the greatest thing since Old Milwaukee and 12 gauge shotguns.

This is the same Gov. Gilmore who, standing in front of the Pentagon, declared that, "We can all thank God that no buildings in Virginia were affected by these acts of terrorism."

This is the same Gov. Gilmore who has completely refused to enact any budget for the state for the current year, instead prefering to throw a hissy fit because it doesn't include a tax break for luxury car owners.

Re:Regarding Gov. Gilmore:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same Gov. Gilmore who, standing in front of the Pentagon, declared that, "We can all thank God that no buildings in Virginia were affected by these acts of terrorism."

i thought northern virginia didn't want to let Alexandria go back to the district?

Jesus, here we go again

[Jennifer Ever]

So, run this by me one more time...

We need to bend the rules to get these "hackers" because..?

a) My AOL password is of greater importance than the guy who got shot down by the river.
b) Current courts are too slow in dealing with hackers, who we all know move at incredible speeds, often using 5 keyboards--Matrix-style--to gain access to both secret CIA files and ICBM launch codes in a matter of minutes.
c) Government is in the pocket of corporate America, and corporate America will never be able to convince people to hand over control of their lives and money if there's concern that someone other than the good folks at MS will have access to it.

Well, figure it out for yourself.

Anyway...

The problem with laws like these is that they're pushed as being a response to a specific threat, but once in place, are never limited to dealing with that threat. So this is to protect our national security? How many "hackers" in this country are threats to national security? Wouldn't it be safer to say that the actual threat is the vulnerability in government systems? After all, if someone in America can gain access to classified information, it stands to reason that someone in China or Iraq could do the same. And what constitutes a threat anyway? Someone who gets into systems that are secured tighter than the government's is a potential threat--even though that person has never acted against the government, will they be tried and jailed as a threat to national security simply for what they can do, not what they've done?

And does anyone in a position of power consider these sorts of things?

National IT

[twitter]

Gilmore also called for an "unprecedented partnership between the public and private sectors" in sharing intelligence and real-time information. In a nod to privacy, he recommended that Congress create a not-for-profit entity to oversee the process.

I'm sure Bill Gates will pay everyone's salary! Really. This kind of co-operations makes me very uneasy. Setting aside the constitution and human rights in general, does this make sense? Is the government going to just trust what the private sector gives them? I don't believe it for a minute.

The private sector will be gleeful untill they understand the obligations federal complience will put them under. This will be Nationalization, much as has happened to health care.

power to the ...

[zoftie]

Everyone struggles for power in US. Its like a
disease. The more power you have the more power
people around you want. If you track US congress
legend on what kind of draconian laws were
attempted to be moved through there, these will
look dismal. At all times someone was trying to
make up a law that would benefit one small priviliged group, and congress has responsibility
to pick it apart and see if it's good for people
who elected congress officials.

There will be relentless onset into queue of
stupid laws and provisions, and there will be
quite more. Why? Because someone screwed up and
wants to restate their righteousness...

Ye Flipping Gods!

[bill.sheehan]

What's next? An anonymous denunciation hotline for turning in your neighbors? "His attic light is on. He's probably up there with his computer again. He's one of those strange quiet types - keeps to himself. Can't be trusted."

I'm reminded of two lessons from my wasted youth. The first was a book called, "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis in 1935. It chronicled the creation of a totalitarian state in America. An excellent cautionary tale, I recommend it.

The second was a lesson I received in group dynamics from my high school theater group's director, a guy named Lou. About a hundred of us kids had gathered together in the gym, doing warmup exercises. Lou got up and introduced a new exercise. We were going to count up from one to ten, slowly adjusting our attitude and appearance from utter dejection to triumphant at ten. One... We were slumped over and suicidal. Two... we straighted a little... Three... perhaps I shall not hang myself today. And so on to a hearty, confident, triumphant roar of TEN! "TEN!" shouted Lou. "TEN!!" we yelled back. "SEIG HEIL!" shouted Lou. "SEIG HEIL!!" we roared. "SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG..."

Lou clapped his hands sharply for attention. He looked at us for a long moment. "Never forget," he said softly, "how easy it was for one man to make you do that."

I never will.

Remember Peter McWilliams

Re:Ye Flipping Gods!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, thankyou for snecdote, even second hand I've got chills running up my spine.

Never forget.

Re:Ye Flipping Gods!

[iplayfast]

Usually slashdot comments are lemming comments that follow the current political slashdot mindset. Once in a while someone says something really important. This is one such case. It's too bad there's only 5 moderation points. This deserves to stand out from the crowd.

Re:Ye Flipping Gods!

[jdavidb]

Call me crazy, but I think I would've stopped when "SEIG HEIL" started. Maybe that's only because I don't fit into groups well or something.

You mean you really started yelling, "Seig heil"?

"One world, one program," etc. :)

Re:Ye Flipping Gods!

[Nicolas MONNET]

"Call me crazy, but I think I would've stopped when "SEIG HEIL" started. Maybe that's only because I don't fit into groups well or something."

Social psychologist have found that most people tend to think of themselves as more different from the majority than they really are. They even have a name for that phenomenon. (See Joule / Beauvois, "Soumission librement consentie")

Its part of the George W. Bush plan...

[MosesJones]

First get elected in dodgy election where you win after some strange goings on in the State run by your brother and your electoral agent gets to deny the opposition a recount.

Next up closed courts.....

Next thing you know he'll bomb the Red Cross....

Re:Its part of the George W. Bush plan...

[einhverfr]

Don't forget that the President is also the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces...

what is Star Chamber

[onepoint]

For those that don't know what Star Chamber is please go to
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~altmann/star-chamber.ht ml

it's a quick summary.

-onepoint

Re:what is Star Chamber

[onepoint]

sorry I forgot about the slashdot effect. here is the cut and paste from that above mentioned site

Start

An English court of law active in the Tudor and early Stuart periods, abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641. An outgrowth of the royal council, it was made up of privy councilors as well as judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. Initially well regarded because of its speed and flexibility, Star Chamber became unpopular as the Stuart kings used it with increasing arbitrariness to enforce the royal prerogative. Its name thus became synonymous with secret, irresponsible court proceedings. (Academic American Encyclopedia)

End

Wow..

[Mike Schiraldi]

Who would have ever thought that Mitnick got off easy?

Please cc the following as well...

[Anonymous Coward]

your mom
Bob Barker
Katheee Leroy Gilford
Joe Nameit
CowboyNeal
your mom
Michael "I can't stand being retired" Jordan
...

The Middle Class Fascist Party

[Rommel]

I am pleased to announce the formation of the Middle Class Fascist Party (http://www.mcfp.org). We are a group of citizens concerned with the following priorities:

1. Maintain a proper spirit of patriotism at all times by daily requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in every place of work and learning throughout America.
2. Maintain a powerful standing military force with the means to impose our will any where needed at any time.
3. Maintain internal security through the creation of an Office of Homeland Security and grant the OHS the authority required to maximize domestic tranquility and security.

These are just a few points from our manifesto, and our ranks are swelling each day. Join the MCFP for America!

Facial Recognition

[isotope23]

Hey this will be great! We'll have an id and facial data on everyone and then using faceit software, we can track all the cyber terrorists secretly. I have an additional suggestion lets slap the SSN on everyone's forehead as a barcode. Then the camera's can scan it, and verify you are the correct person.

The Land of the Sheep and the home of the slave.

Why?

[Shadowin]

Why would they want to hide information/decisions concerning internet cases from the public? Are the people pressing this bought out by the RIAA or something? Government + Secret = Bad Public Policy.

-Shade

It's about time!

[decipher_saint]

It's about time we had a court for those secret Cyber-men!

Two ways this could go-- both bad

[einhverfr]

With "Hackers" sentensed like terrorists and whose search warrants are overseen by some shadowy court, I can see this going two ways. Because, unless the Constitution was amended, these would still be tried by jury, it may make it harder to get convictions in these cases, and a jury may be FAR more inclined to allow for reasonable doubt if the sentense is harsh than they would if the sentense was not.

If your mother was on a jury, would she be able to convict someone guilty of industrial espionage as a terrorist? This recomendation could essentially pardon all the sc121p7 k1dd13s out there and make this sort of crime MUCH harder to prosecute because a jury may not be as likely to call them terrorists...

OTOH, if this sort of case did not become harder to prosecute, then it could create a chilling effect in the security industry, sort of like the DMCA is doing how.

TECH out

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what you need to do, there is no courage to do this. Until the elected officals and the American people know that we are serious about our rights we will always be stepped upon. This isn't a simple letter writing. This calls for legal and organized protest against the way our govt has become. I'm willing to take a day off of work to march on my state's capitol and protest this fraud against freedom. Are you?

Brave New World

[scruffy]

Hackers are terrorists.

Copyright protection is security.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

Smoke and mirrors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, it's all smoke and mirrors.

The "secret cyber court" is an idea guaranteed to get all the freedoms and liberties advocates wound up. Meanwhile, since everyone is distracted by the absurdity of that proposal, the legislators and other power-mongers can slide less obvious bits into their legislation. And, if the "secret cyber court" idea does actually get created, well, bonus.

Posting anonymously because it's not generally a good idea to by ID'd as someone who doesn't buy into the load of bull that gets fed to the public. If that's paranoid, so be it.

Hackers VS. the War On Drugs VS. Terrorists

[supabeast!]

Right now it is a hard time to be a "Tough On Crime" politician.

The government has lost public support for the war on drugs. People fell for it since the 70s, but eventually realized that it was not working, and actually exacerbates problems relating to the drug trade. America's racially biased judicial system (80% of US prison inmates are black, while blacks only make up slightly less than 15% of the US population.) has been getting a lot of negative attention lately, so politicians are starting to sneak away from the whole mess, leaving it for someone else to clean up.

Terrorism was big for a while, but now that George Bush has made anti-terrorist efforts into his war on terrorism, any other politician who hops on the bandwagon will be in Dubya's shadow.

So where does a loudmouthed right winger go? Moving on to sensible issues does not work too well, because Republicans must cut funding for those in order to pay back rich friends with lower taxes. So instead it is time to chase after the hackers! Get those awful kids before they deface another web site! A scourge on mondern civilization!

I guess Gilmore proves that desperate times call for desperate measures...

Blah

[PinkStainlessTail]

Gilmore's current job as chairman of the Republican Party and his reputation of being tech-savvy -- AOL Time Warner's online operations are in Virginia -- add to his clout.

Yeh, he sounds like a pretty 1337 d00d.

Where are the senior system administrators, etc?

[browser_war_pow]

Why is it that elected idiots with law degrees are the ones that do "fact finding" for the government? Wouldn't it be easier to make good decisions that will get respect and not create strife by having experts in a field make the suggestions only?

Usual comments about them not caring don't necessarily apply. Any good congresscritter wants respect and very bad proposal like this certainly does not engender such a sentiment in our country among the electorate

Is this really necessary?

[Col. Panic]

I mean - how technologically advanced do these terrorists seem? They are trained in mountain camps for hand-to-hand combat and they have to have some chemistry education to make explosives, but there is a pretty steep learning curve for anyone who wishes to do more than DDOS some websites.

The computer security industry has major players in the U.S, Europe, Australia, South America and Canada but how much input comes from the Mideast? I know of no computer security companies in that region - someone please enlighten me if I am wrong.

I am not saying that our systems are not vulnerable - they obviously are. But how likely are terrorist groups to have the requisite clue to make real use of those vulnerabilities?

Re:Is this really necessary?

[scott1853]

They weren't trained to fly 747's in their mountain camps. They were trained in America. What's to stop them from coming over here and taking classes at colleges.

They aren't stupid people. Definitely misled, but far from stupid. They are humans and have the same capacity to learn like as we do.

They may not have the capabilities today, but I think 9/11 has taught us to expect the unexpected. We can't wait for them to disable a major cities telephone service, because they would most likely do it to prevent communication during a physical attack. It would me much worse if they could gain remote control of a satellite or the major fiber lines running across the country.

Re:Is this really necessary?

[Stonehand]

Well, some have non-trivial amounts of money, which might be helpful for persuading the unethical technicals. And others have had training in western universities, so you can't discount the possibility of technical gurus in their movements.

'sides, look at cults. Some cults have gotten pretty highly-trained recruits before.

Re:Is this really necessary?

[Col. Panic]

Well, then it would appear that we need to prosecute terrorist hacking I guess. Someone bringing down the air-traffic control system ought to have a greater punishment than someone who for example, steals details about AT&T's switching networks.

Totalitarian...

[idonotexist]

seems to be the proper term.

totalitarian
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Prepare

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy some Guns, Learn how to use them, and prepare to defend the America People against their Enemies.

Smallpox discovered in Michigan!!

[robvasquez]

CNN Exclusive!

Re:No

[sulli]

Oh for some mod points .. glad to see someone has something funny to say on this depressing topic.

What problem is this supposed to solve?

[Animats]

None of the articles indicate what problem this is supposed to solve.

From the problems we're having now, it might be necessary to prohibit anonymous paper mail. This is quite possible. All mail would bear digitally signed stamps, bar-coded stamps., which are available right now and are accepted by the USPS. ("Stamps from your printer!") Retail outlets that sold stamps would have to authenticate buyers, perhaps using Ellison's new ID card.

First sign this is a load of crap

[ryepup]

is the word "Cyber". Maybe we should get an iTechno-X-Court. Anyone who can say "cyber-court" without snickering, dripping sarcasm, or making finger quotes does not deserve our ears.
If anything, /. needs to be the hacker court, moderating good hacks up, and bad hacks down. For example, I saw an ASP reference site where someone had done a global find and replace, s/default/defect/gi
This should be modded up. Media, and politicians especially, don't make the distinction between hackers and crackers. If someone breaks into my machine and just plays around, doing harmless things, then I'd be interested in emailing this person to ask how they did it, not prosecute. If they did something malicious, then yes, they need some punishment.
I believe most people in Congress are techno-phobes, (all with websites, most likely) and are using this tragedy as an excuse to take power away from the people. Personally, I would vote for a techonophile over an older man, regardless of party affiliation, because they wouldn't suggest stupid things like "cyber-court" or crypto-backdoors.

Re:First sign this is a load of crap

[Glytch]

Don't forget the eJuries and eJudges.

Redundant..

[dj28]

All they will be doing is adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already broken system. Why not use the existing system. Seems logical to me.

Some other examples to consider

[twitter]

While I'm no fan of r00ting boxen, you might consider some more malicious hacking activities aimed at large companies dumb enough to trust M$ shitware. At my company we use a remote access program, Outlook, and MSIE on NT. Wow, look at all the holes! Try this list:

Disable all desktops with email virus and cripple Engineering.

Root a few select boxen and mess with plant paramiters.

Root a some other select boxen and take out plant instrumentation.

Kill the plant process computer and cripple the control room.

Well, this might not kill 7,000 people but doing all of them at once to a chlorine plant could. Yes, that would be terrible. Done large scale, this could disrupt the economy almost as much as M$'s intentionally inflicted losses. So you see, hacking can be more devious than r00ting cable boxes.

The rememdy is not a secret court.

Re:Some other examples to consider

[btellier]

Well, this might not kill 7,000 people but doing all of them at once to a chlorine plant could.

Except that now it isn't computer hacking, it's murder with all the normal penalties. Perhaps it's not 1st degree murder if the person didn't necessarily know that it was going to happen, but any court would convice on at least manslaughter. The point of this bill is to make the act of hax0ring punishable (in the case of Big Company Lawyers, naturally).

Re:Some other examples to consider

[Winged Cat]

Uh, yeah, and exactly how are you going to do steps 2, 3, and especially 4 without physical access to the company's offices? Especially to those control computers that don't have network connections precisely because they'd be a security risk?

how long until

[btellier]

we see some 14 year old nerd's sinister 8th grade picture on the cover of the Washington Post with the caption: WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE? This has gotten absolutely out of hand. I'm all for strict sentences, but they should be carried out in the same manner that things like fraud, B&E and vandalism are.

"I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences,"

Are they *insane*? At least they could clarify this with "who are trying to steal US nuclear secrets" or something.

In other news...

[jd]

The newly-established kangaroo court convicted three wallabies.

This was all supposed to have been settled in the 13th century, under the terms of the Great Charter. Mind you, a later king's refusal to honor that same charter led to the eventual independence of the northern part of a well-known continent, which then took that charter, simplified it, and turned it into it's own Constitution.

The score so far: King John - Nil, Civilization - 2.

I don't know who's "right" or "wrong" on this issue, and I don't particularly care. If it happens, it happens, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. What I think isn't worth a damn. All I know is that, historically, certain decisions are made, time and time again, all with much the same results. Nobody -has- to explain anything, but I would really like it if someone could tell me why this time should be any different.

Bill Gates' Application to sit on the Cyber Court

[parliboy]

Sometime in 2004...

"Hi, I'd like to apply for a position on the cyber court."

"That's fine, could you please establish your education for us?"

"Well, I went to Harvard for three years before I dropped out to form my own New World Or... er... company."

"I'm sorry, sir, but we require a bachelor's degree for all members of the court."

"I'm Bill Gates, dammit! I founded MicroSoft! I'm the richest man in the world!"

"Oh, you should go see the summons department then. They've been wanting to meet with you about why people who have Office FU keep reporting lost data due to someone sniffing around from an IP we traced to Redmond."

"Err... it was Nintendo of America! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

"Do you have a toothbrush, sir?"

License for palm pilot

[doogieh]

>Next thing you know, I'll be needed to license my palm pilot.

Actually, you may soon need a license for your palm pilot. There is a patent case where Xerox claims that palm's graffiti language infringes its patent. If Xerox wins, you will have to pay royalties on any new palm/handspring/sony you buy.

Now, to the point: if a private party can make you license a palm pilot, the government can probably try. Do you use your palm in interstate commerce?

Syntax Error At Line 10

[jd]

Let us define the function F(X, Y), where X is the current economic climate, Y is the pressure on the economy and the output of the function F(X) is the likely future economic climate.

Let us now define X as "depression", and Y as "perceived hostility to technology || actual hostility to experimentation || actual hostility to cottage industries".

What is the probable value of F(X, Y)?

Re:Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen this?

BRAINDEAD MODERATOR

[GigsVT]

If you don't get the joke, don't mod it down, idiot.

Re:BRAINDEAD MODERATOR

[Nicolas MONNET]

I think we have a pretty anal mod bunch today, every single post is modded down, 't must be that time of the month again.

What is Star Chamber

[Martin S.]

This link seems to be SlashDOSed.

So here goes my explanation. A Star Chamber is essentially identical to what is described in the article. A secret court with secret members, which conducts a secret trial, and meets out summary punitive 'justice'. Whilst the concept predate history the name "Star Chamber" is taken from such a court that existed to deal with suspected Tories/Collaborators in the American insurrection/rebellion.

Physical Security

[dmaxwell]

We obsess here a lot about network security for very good reasons. Proposals like this from government and industry also make obvious the need for equally thorough physical security.

I don't think prevention is possible in the case of an adversary like a well heeled business or the government. They can get in your house and fiddle with your equipment any time they want with "courts" like these. Detection on the other hand should be investigated.

I'm thinking of things like a switch on the inside of cases that causes emails and log entries when tripped. Ditto for mucking about with the keyboard or any other periphreals. How about a motion detection system monitoring the workstations and other hardware....that itself trips all manner of indications if it is tampered with.

Of course, Tripwire or a similar utility should be monitoring the integrity of files as well.

I like the idea of Mr. Federal Agent seeing my face pop up on the monitor as I ask him "Can I help you with something or did you just come in here to surf some porn?"

Gilmore's a fscking idiot

[Joseppi Blauinski]

"Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)" -- Come on, gimme a break. Your software stomps all over my creative license. Like, if I have to get a license for my palm, will I have to pay a per use fee for beating off?

Are they Science people?

[Anonymous Coward]

What (if any) science background do these people have? What degrees do they have, from which schools? What have they published, in what (science) journals? How much time have they spent working in labs since they graduated? What (science) societies are they members of? What have they contributed to science? Which ones are geeks? What were they awarded Nobel Prises for (:o)?

Perhaps /. readers need to form a legislative committee, to review all proposed laws, before they can be voted upon...

double secret probation...

[Hooya]

are they going to be responsible for coming up with the 'double secret probation'?

Only the U.S. Supreme Court is "unaccountable."

[Paul Bain]

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I am a lawyer-shyster. To the extent that the decisions of most federal courts are appealable to a higher federal court (and may be reversed therein), those courts are accountable. Furthermore, the Senate may remove federal judges who abuse their power, even the Justices of the U.S. Supreme court. That's a point sometimes cited by jurists who refer to the judicial branch of our system of government as "the least dangerous branch."

Re:Need to Contact Each Member of Science Committe

[Judas96']

Problem 1.) Elected officials don't seem to read e-mails sent by anybody. Solution: Send snail mail!
Problem 2.) People in media and government are now paranoid about opening letters due to the very recent Anthrax scare. Solution: Send e-ma... wait a minute...
So now how do you get a message across to your government representative without belonging to a special interest group with deep pockets? Next thing you know seeking an audience without being a WASP and having a 6 figure annual income will bring you under suspicion for a possible assassination attempt.
I am stretching to be sure, but I think most people will agree that the more paranoid a nation gets, the less power and freedom an individual citizen has.

Obediance to authority

[bigdavex]

Stanley Milgram ran an experiment that explored this topic. The basic idea was that he took volunteers for a "teaching experiment". The volunters who were the "teachers" would agree to shock the crap out of people, simply because an authority figure told them to.

Quoted from the link:

When Milgram conducted the study, he found that with a little bit of coaxing, the majority (60%) of subjects would administer shocks right through to 450 volts. The people administering the shocks were not "pathological sadists" as the psychologists had described them, but normal everyday people. At this point I think I should point out that nobody actually received electric shocks... the learner was a confederate of the experimenter and was pretending to be in pain. The only real subject in the experiment was the "teacher".

(I think I first saw this on Slashdot or Kuro5hin. Thanks to whoever posted it first.)

Re:Obediance to authority

[Hard_Code]

There was a similar study simulating prisons, in the 70s...I think it was done by Berkeley, or one of those schools in California. Anyway, they got a bunch of undergrads and completely randomly separated them into "prisoners" and "guards". The experiment was amazing: the guards eventually became sadistic and really mean to the prisoners, employing punishment, and rewards for good behavior...the prisoners squabbled and fought each other, became depressed, revolted. I think they had to call it off because people were becoming suicidal - completely forgetting that it was all *an experiment*, they really thought they were a prisoner, or that as a guard it was their duty to "stick it" to the prisoners...even though these were the same people that would have been studying and going out together just two weeks before. I think PBS had a show on about this. Totally fascinating.

Secret hearing != Secret trial; NO Star Chamber

[Paul Bain]

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp The poster (hillct) and Slashdot employee Michael state that

"Most disturbing among these recommendations was a call for "Establishment of a special 'Cyber Court' patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]." . . . . Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

I am a lawyer-shyster. I think that hillct and Michael (in addition to everyone mentioning the term "Star Chamber," a synonym for a secret trial) may have overreacted or misinterpreted this news. First, secret trials contravene the U.S. Constitution. Any statute (federal or state) purporting to empower a court to hear and decide crimial liability in secret would be unconstitutional. A judicial hearing is not a trial, however, and the hearings contemplated under FISA are only those relating to whether law enforcement agents may surveil a particular communication or party/parties.

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And secrecy in the judicial branch is not always undesirable. Nearly ALL grand juries meet, hear evidence (while a judge presides), and deliberate in secret. But they make no determination as to criminal liability. They simply indict (or fail to indict), a step necessary to having a person tried. Secrecy in certain judicial proceedings is absolutely necessary -- secrecy is not always undesirable.

Achtung!

[Anonymous Coward]

Achtung! Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papieren! Schell!

Sieg Heil!

We need technical darwinism, not law

[alienmole]

What all of these proposals miss is the incredible service that "nuisance" hackers and virus-writers perform.

Imagine if Osama bin Laden, or the "evil" terrorist or dictator of your choice, had spent a few million dollars developing a really dangerous version of Code Red or Nimda, and released it before those security holes had already mostly been closed as a result of more benign attacks.

A truly dangerous virus would remain fairly dormant, attracting little attention, until it had spread widely. It would then attack with the most devastating attack possible, which probably means deleting all files it can find. If it was really smart, it would figure out a way to compromise backup data without being detected, so that recent backups would be useless. An attack like this could cripple technological nations and cost trillions of dollars to recover from.

A truly dangerous virus like this is a little more difficult to deploy now, thanks to Nimda and Code Red. In other words, the cyber-equivalent of the World Trade Center tragedy has been at least partially averted, but without truly serious cost. In fact, rather than try to stamp out hackers (crackers), we should wish for a real-world equivalent - petty criminals who could have forced us, prior to Sep. 11, to close some of the enormous holes in security and strategic thinking that made the attack possible.

The real issue should be what the hackers actually do. In real life, small crimes (misdemeanours) such as defacement and minor vandalism get small penalties. The danger in cyberspace is that fear leads to an environment in which any cybercrime, no matter how small, is punished extremely. If this approach succeeds in inhibiting petty cybercrime, all this will do is open up huge loopholes to be exploited by those with a more dangerous agenda.

Gilmore is my Governor

[ca1v1n]

He won the election because he promised eliminating the personal property (car) tax. This is a local tax, which he was going to reimburse the localities for out of state funds coming from the temporary budget surplus. This means that localities with a high personal property tax, generally the rich ones, get more money, while the poorer localities get the shaft, as they always have. Now we have a budget crisis in Virginia.

Whatever Gilmore claims about being tech-savvy is a load of BS. He's politically savvy, and he tried to get through a bunch of laws that would give Virginia jurisdiction over the whole internet because of the traffic that gets routed through Northern Virginia. The man wants power and knows how to get it while convincing a lot of people they'll be better off for it.

Curious why Gilmore would be interested in more police powers? Because he's being groomed to be the next Attorney General of the US. I'd personally prefer him over Ashcroft because he doesn't seem to harbor any ethnic biases, but that's about it. Watch out for this man. You'll probably hear from him again.

hysteria

[mj6798]

Treating computer "viruses" and "hacking" as "weapons of mass destruction" is absurd. The destructive power of computer viruses is a myth. In reality, critical systems are usually embedded and well-protected. The Windows desktop computers and web sites that are compromised by the millions by viruses and hackers are generally easily restored. If particular systems are critical, their owners could protect them with little more effort than that required to have a lock on their front door, something any reasonable person would do.

This is just a long range in a long series of poor judgements in public policy. Horrible as the WTC attacks were, most people are not at risk from those kinds of attacks. Anthrax is not a pleasant disease, but it is common in many countries and easily treatable in most cases. The hysterical reaction to terrorism and resulting policies in the US is causes more damage than the terrorism itself.

makes me wonder

[dR.fuZZo]

A cyber court should exist only online...

So, would it be cause for a retrial if they found out the members of the jury were looking up pr0n during the trial? Or would that be considered standard practice?

Secret Court Proceedings

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who are historically minded, you might want to check out the "Court of Star Chamber", especially under the English Stuart kings. The FISA court and Cyber-court show that we are always close to surrendering our freedom and rights to an autocratic government when under pressure.
/s/jarmode
(I am not an anonymous coward, just someone who has trouble remembering his password.)

Take it from someone who knows

[Anonymous Coward]

This court isn't a bad idea, if you think it is your as uneducated as you think the judges now are.

There's strong cases for this court to exist, mainly they won't let things happen like what happened to Mitnick. The judges either will or quickly learn the problems behind new technology.

How can that be bad? I predict more courts will sooner or later become specialized, doesn't it make sense to have judges that know the subject their ruling on?

As far as the anonymous part goes don't discount it. Sure the courts location, judges, and some other small details are secret, but we all know it gets out anyway, especially with it pertaining to computers and the internet.

I feel sorry for the people who outright condemn this, take a second and think it through.

just food for thought

[twitter]

Those are not steps. Though a company desktop or two would have to be owned to get to more important computers, some of them actually have modems! Anyone with a war dialer and plant knowledge already knows about them. Why bother. Owning desktops should be a trivial exploit, considering how brain dead NT, Outlook and MSIE are. This company has alowed people to install whatever stupid little screen saver, icon program they felt like. Any of those programs with backdoors can be detected by watching company web traffic and broken into. You would be supprised at what systems have network connections. I could tell you exactly how to do it for my company, but then I'd have to kill you for not being able to figure it out for youself.

The point of my post was that "hacking" can be a little more malicious than defacing a web site, and can involve real terrorist activity. Just shutting down desktops is dammaging.

Re:just food for thought

[Winged Cat]

The point of my post was that "hacking" can be a little more malicious than defacing a web site, and can involve real terrorist activity. Just shutting down desktops is dammaging.

True...but my point was, judging by the chemical plants I've helped design, truly life threatening damage would be beyond the capabilities of someone not physically present. Not just to own the desktop, but to get into the more critical machines in the first place. True, one could quite possibly download schematics et al to make the physical visit a cakewalk, and maybe all you'd have to do would be to install a wireless modem into a certain computer originally built without any network connections, but physical access would eventually be required.

true

[twitter]

Except that now it isn't computer hacking, it's murder with all the normal penalties.

That's true, and it can happen inadvertantly due to the poor quality of software used by many companies. And yes, existing laws were already more than enough.

The only reason I wrote was because I did not like the dissmisive tone the parent had towards cracking. Your efforts to open up a web page for devacement can set the stage for nastier things to happen and you should consider what you do in that light. I don't like the bill, or any of the other horrible legislation passed in the last few weeks. Still, you should consider what you do when you go messing with other people's stuff.

It is far better to creat than to destroy. The erosion of freedoms we are seeing will make us all poorer by reducing our freedom, and our ability to create, in the name of defending what we have. What we have will stagnate and rot.

Disregard....

[QwkHyenA]

I'm from Virginia. He's an idiot who won't be serving another term.

Disregard him

Sorry.

Wrong Book

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is slavery.

The readers who marked the parent post as a Troll have a clue.

Seriously, are you going to tell me that you people do not recognize doublespeak as practiced in George Orwell's 1984? (The dictators of Brave New World weren't as big on the "boot stomping on a human face forever" bit, preferring to use a combination of drugging the population into a sheep-like state, and suppressing books such as the Bible.)

The Third Wave [Reich] in Palo Alto.

[SgtChaireBourne]

People love to be told what to do... and most knuckle under to facilitate facists or become facists themselves: In The Third Wave was an experiment just like this,but on a larger scale. Student went around with armbands, even. Eventually it got rough and the teacher brought it to a halt.

Now that facism is allowed to be discussed in Germany again, it's being used as a teaching tool. (Uh, specifically on the *dangers* of facism.)

I guess all the Americans that remember McCarthyism are non-tech and retired. Everyone else is too young.

The Price is Wrong

[Your Anus]

Bitch!

Sorry. Had to be done.

Futile

[cheezehead]

A few remarks.

Again, people forget that the Internet spans more than the USA. Any effort to fight this form of terrorism will have to be global to be effective. Given the Orwellian nature of these laws, it is highly unlikely that any worldwide consensus will be reached on this anytime soon.

From the Wired article:

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) suggested additional punitive measures. "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences," Ehlers said.

Besides from this being completely out of proportion, you're not gonna stop a suicidal terrorist by imposing stiffer sentences. Does he really think tougher sentences will scare off terrorists from hacking?