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

[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"

[sharkey]

How about the "Brown Mousepads"?

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....

[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....

[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....

[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.

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?

[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?

[Datafage]

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

(inserted to avoid lame filter)

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[Glytch]

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

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.

[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?"

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

[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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

[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.

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:

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.

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

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....

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?

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

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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

[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?

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: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.

BRAINDEAD MODERATOR

[GigsVT]

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

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?"

double secret probation...

[Hooya]

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

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...

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.

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...

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?

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.