Slashdot Mirror


Sen Hatch Would Like To Destroy Filetraders' PCs

CBackSlash writes "Sen. Hatch is interested in technology to remotely destroy computers. But it would only be used if you're downloading copyrighted material, and only the copyright owner should be able to wield this awesome power, since having the feds do it would be against the law. Here is the AP story from Yahoo!."

13 of 1,372 comments (clear)

  1. Hatch has finally lost it by dtolton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is just pure lunacy. Hatch has said some pretty crazy
    things over the years, but this has to top the list.

    I've been a supporter of Hatch for several years, even helping
    with the election effort on several occasions. This takes the
    cake though, it's time to get fresher blood into that office.

    If you want to call his office and complain (as I will):
    DC Office: 202.224.5251
    SLC Office: 801.524.4380

    here is his website:
    http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/

    Please call and voice your extreme antagonism to these types of
    statements. Although the other Senators called him down, he
    needs to know that we hear these statements and are against them
    in the extreme.

    I just got off the phone with the Salt Lake Office, and they had
    no idea he had made statements of this nature. In fact she was
    quite taken back to hear of them. Please call and let them know
    how you feel about this. If they know their voters are against
    this type of behavior, they will change it.

    --

    Doug Tolton

    "The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
  2. Scary by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you read his comments in context, the truth of what he said becomes obvious.

    Cyberphobia among the old guard, as represented by people in Hatch's generation, has given way to overt, unbridled hatred of technology and its advocates. He views internet users as a group of miscreants who must be taught a lesson and his suggestions of remote computer destruction as a perfectly valid means of holding due process hostage to force us to solve the content industry's problems.

    I am aghast.

  3. This is already possible - Grubbnix! by beee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone recall the code for Grubbnix? It was a quick hack in the early to mid 90s, but it worked quite well. Call it a cross-over between a bootloader and an OS, I suppose.

    Anyways, the interesting part of Grubbnix was that it had a lot of capability and use when it came to flashing your BIOS (most major motherboard companies today still use a Grubbnix variant with their flashing utilities). I still remember one variant called Hucker (or something like that, maybe Huckey) that was spread around on disks to unsuspecting users. When you loaded it and left it running, it opened up your system enough so that someone via TCP/IP could execute commands, one of which was to completely shitfuck your BIOS, and sometimes even managed to cause damage to the CPU/motherboard by modifying threshold settings in the BIOS (depending on your model #).

    It used to be passed out to "enemies" at HackerCons, who would then take it home, load it, and end up with a fucked PC.

    Perhaps Senator Hatch needs to give the Cult of the Dead Cow an e-mail and see if they still have the source around somewhere ;-)

    --


    + Donald Gunth
    + Email: dgunth@quicktek.net
    "Caffeine is the greatest lubricant ever created." -ESR
  4. Against the law... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course, the reason it is illegal for the Feds to do it is to prevent abuses. So we give it to a *less* regulated group. Greeaat.

    Actually though, as long as they are still liable for any damages they inflict this will be fun. Let's see, they (will/would have) just destroyed a $1000 computer, with $10000 (and if you can't figure out a way to back that figure up you need help) of the user's own data to delete a $0.99 song. Can we spin this?

    Of course, it is better to stop this now, before the circus...

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  5. Re:They know nothing by MisterFancypants · · Score: 4, Interesting
    These people are no smarter than a little kid saying, "I'm a hacker, I can make your computer blow up using the internet."

    If this idea becomes a reality, then that skript kiddie was just a visionary! Imagine the aftermath of an Internet worm that sent the 'copyright self destruct' message to a computer a week or so after infecting it (hopefully infected many other computers in the interm). It would make CodeRed look like a pleasant dream.

  6. Re:Later in the discussion... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Incidentally, how are they going to verify the location of the individual? Despite the US governments wishes, only a small part of the planet is under their direct control and, ergo, their laws. Dubious legality of destruction not withstanding, they sure as hell have NO rights to destroy someones system in Sweden or wherever.

    Plus, one would HOPE you get a warning before they nuke your system.

    Wonder if Dell is behind this plan?;)

  7. Re:Later in the discussion... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Erm... Remember the CIH virus that nuked your CMOS, and in many cases the outcome was requiring a new motherboard? You can backup all you like. Without your MOBO you ain't goin' nowhere...

  8. Indirect consequences by mcc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your anology is good. I will now stretch it to the point of being silly.

    There are studies-- ones i can't remember the names of or links to, of course-- that show that spanking a child makes that child more likely to grow up to be a violent person. If I remember right, the claim was that people who had corporal punishment used on them as a child were more likely to grow up to be the kind of person who beat their wives or children.

    The reason given for this, again if i remember right, was that by having violence used on them at such a sensitive age, the child grows up thinking violence is "normal", and application of violence is how you are expected to solve problems, and beating someone is an acceptable and normal way for one human to get another human to comply with a request.

    So, here's my thought: what happens if the RIAA hacking and screwing up your computer if you've been filetrading becomes common? What happens to the children/teenagers who grow up under this kind of paradigm, and grow up seeing that the RIAA, this big important adult business thing that funds congressional campaigns and everything, reacts to people doing things it things are wrong by tracking them down and breaking their stuff?

    If it works like spanking does, well, we may well wind up with a generation growing up thinking vigilante justice is normal. Or maybe growing up with a kind of "us vs them" mentality toward corporations; that corporations are some kind of big distant enemies who can do anything they like without the law applying. And you can't tell a kid that someone big is allowed to hit you and you can't hit back and have them believe you. They might wind up growing up thinking that terrorism by corporations against citizens, and terrorism against corporations by citizens, is normal, and the law considers such things acceptable enough they don't regulate them.. as long as one is doing the other doesn't like...

    This is stretching, and of course, none of this will ever come to pass. But, just a thought.

  9. Re:Later in the discussion... by Ziest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is ridiculous. Wilful destruction of property is AGAINST THE LAW! Let's look at this another way. He's effectively saying that if you download copyrighted material, someone can be sent by the company that owns it to break both your legs.

    I have a question for the Senator from Utah. Under the recently passed Patriot Act distruction of a computer system is considered an act of terrorism. Does the senators recent comments mean he is now supporting act of terrorism?

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
  10. Vigilantie Senators. by pcwhalen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What the Senator is suggesting is that a purported copyright holder be allowed to destroy property of another with no trial. This is un-American.

    First, an Article 3 created court needs to determine guilt or innocence. Second, destruction of property as a punishment appears nowhere in the penal code [hehe, hehe, he said "penal"]. Last time I checked, we didn't cut off hands, either.

    If I am a farmer and I think you may have stolen corn from my field as you drove by, could I destroy your refridgerator?

    Hatch has no concept of technology or the dynamic of the problem he seeks to address. Thus, he speaks as one insane.

    "I'd do away with the pixies if you could give me something more." Ben Lee

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  11. US. Gov't vs. The People :: Forfeiture by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds scary. But it does have legal precedence, of sorts.

    I was recently warned that in Los Angeles county, if you're caught racing (by the judgement of the arresting officer), your vehicle is forfeit to the county.

    In Florida, any vehicle involved in any drug violation may be forfeit to the state. Of course, the state is in it for the money, so they'll be nice enough to sell you your own vehicle back. A friend of mine paid over $5,000 to get her own car back over a minor violation. It took over a month to get things arranged, and several trips to that city. She had only been passing through the town, she wasn't a resident.

    One particular sheriff's department has some of my handguns still, which I'm particuarly upset about. My ex-wife was getting violent, so I gave a friend everything dangerous from the house. She locked them all away in the trunk of her car. A couple days later, she was pulled over on suspicion of DUI. She wasn't arrested for DUI, but because she was pulled over on suspicion, they seized the weapons. It did absolutely no good to try to explain it to anyone. And yes, they were all perfectly legal. The begging to get my stuff back ended when they finally came up with the standpoint of "we don't know where they are." They just disappeared out of the system. {cough}{cough}. Ya into someone's personal collection, I'm sure.

    The gov't is already seizing property without due processes or reasonable cause. I doubt they'll get the law through saying you can hack, but I'd bet they'll pass laws saying any equipment used in the act of the crime (the crime being music piracy) can be seized. I'm sure it'll be broad enough to include just about anything in house/apartment.

    As for just killing machines on demand, I'd bet Microsoft will include that in future releases of Windows very willingly. It would terrify me to know that they could just pick and choose machines to zap.

    If I was Joe-ISP hosting on Windows machines (ok, that would never happen), and one site had MP3's on it, they could not only destroy that site, but every site hosted there? They could cause damage to the machine itself (i.e., wipe the BIOS, drop the partition table, etc). I'd be afraid to think what would happen with a single BIOS change to bump the voltage up to the CPU and watch it fry. What would 12v do to a low voltage CPU line? Now what if that hosting machine happened to be a big expensive hosting machine? I've seen pricetags over $40k come by. It wouldn't be very good to see one of those go up in smoke.

    I'd be just as upset if my kid had friends over, and they were downloading files and got *MY* machine destroyed. I'm not exactly going to be satisfied with "The RIAA destroyed your computer because someone was downloading Enimen's new album. They're legally protected in this action." Well, I'd probably be more upset as this would be my own machine. Customers can live with a server down for a day or two (but they won't like it). My personal property is *MINE*.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  12. Did Orrin mention that he accepted over $175K.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    from the TV/Movies/Music industry? I didn't think so......

    First he brings us the DMCA and now this....

  13. When Lobbying goes wrong by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The old DRM Lobby has been trying a bit too hard. Some old folks in congress have got such a huge misunderstanding of how the machines that power our lives work it's incredible.

    BTW, according to netcraft http://www.hatchmusic.com/ is running Apache on Linux.

    That means Linus, as well as most other programmers who have worked on Linux or Apache would be able to remotely destroy his site. Bill Gates would be able to destroy 90% of the computers in existence.

    I suppose this law would quickly be followed by a law making it illegal to block the port they pick. Or maybe they will just talk to your ISP, go to your house and take your computer. They can cut them up with axes in the street like the old prohibition days. I bet Hatch can remember those days himself. :)