Slashdot Mirror
EFF To Appeal Court Order Vs. Subway Hack Demo
snydeq sends along InfoWorld coverage of the EFF's plans to appeal a US District Court order that kept three MIT students from presenting detailed flaws in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority e-ticketing system at Defcon. And an anonymous reader points out that the MBTA, in addition to triggering the Streisand Effect, released in open court more information on vulnerabilities (PDF) than the students had any intention of presenting. See Exhibit 1 to this court filing.
It seems that the people who are bringing flaws to light are cast as the villains, while nobody even considers blaming or even questioning the people who selected a poorly-implemented system to run an entire city's public transit.
If only there were some branch of the government whose job it was to ensure that people's constitutional rights were protected!
The two students at Georgia Tech that hacked the campus Blackboard swipe system (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/15/student_hackers_we_didnt_defeat/).The general idea was that it didn't matter how secure the encryption-system was, if the physical system was easy to get to. You don't have to figure out what information is being sent to the machine, all they had to do was 'capture' a 'yes-there-is-enough-money-on-the-card' response, then duplicate. Hey free snacks!!
You know what would rock, an infinite gift card to Wendy's.
How can you justify the hack? Showing people how to ripoff the subway would seem to be a criminal act.
No... RIPPING OFF THE SUBWAY is the criminal act.
By your logic everyone in the military should go to jail for teaching or learning how to kill.
How can any such order be justified in the light of the first amendment protection of free speech?
The judge is an idiot. Prior restraint is unconstitutional. This will not survive the appeal.
Because; "You have the right to freedom of speech as long as your not dumb enough to use it".
Freedom of speech, like just about all our supposed freedoms, is only available to those that can afford to defend it in court. The contrapositive of this fact is of course that the ability to take away freedoms from someone is available to those that can afford to attack them in court.
Companies, etc, apply for injunctions and by Gods they get them. Do you think if you, whatever your grievance, applied for an injunction against a major company that it would be awarded? Money talks. Judges listen. It's not necessarily something as base as bribes. Just high class laywers gaming a system that puts up with being gamed.
These three hackers should not have appealed this order. They should have ignored it. Defcon should have ignored it. Why obey an order that is going to be struck down anyway? Threat of censure? The court can only censure you if it's oder was legal in the first place.
If more people stood up to, and openly defied the courts; we'd have a better court system.
May the Maths Be with you!
A couple comments:
First, the information was already released. The entire presentation was handed out on CDs at the beginning of the conference. All the court order did was prevent a true dialog about the hack.
Second, it could be construed that not releasing the information also has a negative cost. As a public entitiy, the transit agency has a duty to look after the system. The hack points out a flaw in the system. Was the system design opened to public scrutiny prior to its use in an attempt to prevent such a hack? If the hack were not widely known would the agency be working dilligently to fix the flaws?
This is not much different than the "print your own bogus boarding pass" hack. The big worry wasn't really that loved ones could see you off at the gate, but that "bad guys" could go through security, metal detectors and such only to swap tickets with someone who wasn't on the no-fly list. What the release of that hack did was point out a flaw that already existed and provide incentive to fix it, or to drop the whole boarding pass as security sham in the first place.
As to the yelling Fire! in the theater analogy: If there's really a fire, it's Ok to yell.
This is another situation the 1st ammendment was designed to protect. Annoying, painful, expensive, dangerous speech might need to be protected.
Then would you also like to allow the people who said "some toys in Wal-Mart have lead in them" to also have their speech limited?
The critical part of rights like the freedom of speech is that if it excludes stuff you don't like, then it is worthless.
"You can say whatever you want, as long as nobody is offended" doesn't really work.
Personally I don't see how any possible exclusions to freedom of speech can be obtained from "Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;", and so libel and slander can't be made illegal as the first amendment is currently written. Neither do I think that it should be possible to make obscene or offensive speech, books, or printings illegal.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
By a governmental (or quasi-governmental) agency, who is therefore bound by the First Amendment.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
What bothers me about this comment isn't that you trivialize terrorism. Yes, it does exist (read on before you mod, please). It doesn't even bother me that it's modded funny.
What bothers me is the "cry wolf" tactics our media and politicians use whenever something happens they don't like. It's because of terrorism that people can't bring their own coke to a plane anymore (it's not that we want airlines to get additional revenue from selling their drinks). P2P fuels terrorism (not that we want to prop up an outdated business model). It's terrorism why we are forced to reliinquish our essential rights (not because our politicians don't want us to say things they don't want the public to know).
"Terrorism" has been abused as the catch all argument whenever something is imposed upon us that goes against the interests of our politicians and their cronies. And people start to see through the thinly veiled egoistic goals, and start to mock it. As you would mock anyone who cries wolf as soon as something happens he doesn't like.
What bothers me most is that when the terrorists strike, we'll get told "see? We told you, it's terrorism!" Instead of them learning that their wolfcrying creates nothing but contempt and ridicule, they will point at us and blame us for not taking it serious, when it has been abused time and again.
Terrorism is a real threat to the US and the "western" world. Abusing it to cry wolf about everything you want to do against your people is not going to make them take it serious. Quite the opposite.
As can be seen in the parent posting.
Daimanta, not trying to belittle you. You're just the one that speaks what everyone was thinking. "Ok, how long 'til they claim terrorism is the reason?" It's not against you, again. It's against those that abuse the terrorist card for everything that goes against their interests.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Basically, it doesn't even matter whether the threat is real or imagined. Personally, I think 3000 people in 7 years (and counting) is peanuts. When that's what you're scared about, you shouldn't drive anymore or have an operation. The chances to die in a car accident or on the OP table are significantly higher.
If it is real, it would even increase the mark of shame on our politicians and media. If it's fake, they're just causing a hype to push their agenda. If it's real, they're crying wolf and abuse the "terrism" hype so far until nobody takes it serious anymore.
It's basically like it was in my school. We had fire drills every month or so. Net result? People didn't even bothing going out anymore when the alarm rang. It was known to be fake, so why bother listening to it?
When you overdo drills or abuse a warning system, people will stop taking them serious. It will just be another drill or another hype when you ring the alarm. And that could backfire badly should the threat be real one day again.
I predict a disaster should another terrorist strike happen one day. We'll then get to hear that some "threat level indicator" was at some nice, warm color anyway and "we warned you", but we won't hear that that indicator was about the same nice, warm color for years and we've been blitzed with fake warnings almost at a daily base. Warnings cease to create an elevated level of caution when they happen too often, especially if those warnings are abused to push completely unrelated agendas, just because "terrists" are a comfortable reason to abolish civil rights.
People aren't dumb. They see through it, and they will (and as you can see, do) ridicule those "warnings". It's way harder, though, to actually discriminate a real threat from one of those agenda-pushing fakes when you get told the same old lies over and over. Should a real threat be discovered and actually published, the first reaction most people have won't be "how can I avoid it?" but rather "what are they trying to do to my rights this time?"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The First Amendment doesn't mean that the government can't regulate speech, particularly the timing and method of speech, but even in some cases the content of the speech. However, such regulations must be narrowly tailored to fulfill a legitimate public purpose, such as national defense.
Addressing the vulnerabilities before they become widely exploited is obviously a legitimate public purpose. A restraining order delaying temporarily the release of the details of the vulnerabilities (not the fact of their existence) while they do this would be narrowly tailored to serve that purpose.
I'm not saying it's right, but you should know what your rights actually are. They don't include the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want without fear of punishment, and they never have.
The important points to remember are (a) legitimate public purpose and (b) narrow tailoring. The narrow tailoring requirement is probably the tougher of the two requirements to meet. In this case, since the details of the problems are in the wild, in part because of the authority's own actions (although this doesn't really matter), any further restriction doesn't serve the purpose of allowing the authority to respond in a timely fashion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.