>I've found that a pretty good way of not going >to jail is not to commit crimes like theft or >forgery. Works for me.
yes... jail has been so effective for the americans... the decades of institutional detainment has worked wonders in reducing crime.
The real problem with sentencing computer crime is that anyone can cause a large amount (more importantly undefined quantities like rep, downtime etc) of damage fairly simply. One doesnt have to be criminally insane to hijack a mailserver... on the other hand you would have suspicion about someone who burnt down a building housing a mailserver.
Computer crime is something that the law is currently completely ill equipt to deal with. The courts do not understand the technology na dare attempting to apply property laws without considering whether it is appropriate, while being caught up in a media that is more than willing to exploit ignorance for a juicy story with 7 figure damages...
Let us translate your example to computer programming. "However, I woudln't mind if Perl was removed from the face of the earth. In fact, I woudln't mind of Lisp was removed from the earth (my programming language of choice). "
Uurgghh another crappy comparison. "Lets us translate your example in to limer bean varieties". This doesnt address th issue. Spoken language like every other form of communication is a tradeoff between a "standard" and specialization... "Eskmo" is the best language to describe snow with but not really good for a "general use language"... a standard is needed for communication between computers its TCP/IP between people on computers its English...
Er your claim that this is merely another language cycle that we have seen before is flawed as it doesnt take into account the very point of the article... the internet is changing language in a way we have NOT seen before. Sure the language is changing but it is NOT SPLINTERING. this is largely due to its written form, vocabulary is added not pronunciation therefore is much more resilient to 74!/\/7!/\/9.... although not invulnerable;-^
here in Australia basic food stuffs are tax free. Does that mean if i distribute code carved into potatoes that it can't be taxed? Or will it still be deemed equivalent to MS Office?
People have a tendency to jump to nice hi-tech solutions immediately without building them up from root cause. In this case we have Object A requiring information from object B through channel c. Object A requires 2 things 1) object B's location 2) object B's identity. We shall assume that channel c is insecure... that is A does not have complete control over it. This is way before we even think of encryption as a means to solve this problem. So how would we do this IR? Assuming A and B are people, A could visually (means) verify both B's location and identity. Is this an instance of secure information transfer through an insecure channel (or can this be spoofed)? No, as David Copperfield has shown on numerous occasions. So what should we do to tie down the elusive Mr. Copperfield? We could take blood from him and DNA test it against a sample we "know" to be his. Now take for granted we really do have a known sample of his blood (equivalent to "knowing" you have securely exchanged keys) is this secure? Again no, Gattica people! But it is pretty good (we would have to say good enough... remember no verification is really un-spoofable). Ok so keeping in mind that no verification of B can actually take place at B's location or under B's control (automatically invalidates a secure transfer) what can B actually give A as verification. The best I can come up with for identity is an encrypted retinal and finger print scan through standard encryption methods. This could be enhanced by also requiring a topological print of the eye (pressure with-in the eye varies such that the likely hood of two topological maps being identical is nearly impossible) so that each verification requires a unique map. Physical location is much harder (actually impossible) since there really is NOTHING about it that is unique. Your X,Y,Z,t co-ordinates in the universe mean nothing without an arbitrary reference point which means that there is no real (as opposed to pseudo or relational) information that exists about it. The best I can offer is an encrypted GPS signal from your retinal scanner... of course this invalidates the rule that verification cannot occur at your location (you control the box and A cannot independently verify what it receives from B)
NB I realised i jumped to a tech solution at the end without really running the logic but the first bit is really just something to think about
Re:Timothy: Please learn to spell.
on
Quantum Security
·
· Score: 1
Stop wasting precious bandwidth (and making me waste it which is worse) dont get down on people for their spelling. We're NOT professionals here... we're geeks, and geeks often type things quickly, get the message across, then move on. Just chill and remember Shakespeare couldn't spell "spurious" if his life depended on it.
Routers ??? For God's sake the technology doesn't exist yet! Any speculation as to how quantum technology will interact with existing ones is probably irrelevent. The techs are just completely different. We will probably first see QC in the same sort of tasks as we first saw mainframes... big data crunching machines. Their application in crypto will at first be useful only in physically securing data (host data encryption) not in key exchanges (..its certainly debatable but... there's no such thing as secure key exchange through an untrusted line)and not in secure transmission. As another thought keep in mind that your government is approximately 10 years ahead of academia in crypto research...
Slashdot Mirror
>I've found that a pretty good way of not going >to jail is not to commit crimes like theft or >forgery. Works for me. yes ... jail has been so effective for the americans ... the decades of institutional detainment has worked wonders in reducing crime.
The real problem with sentencing computer crime is that anyone can cause a large amount (more importantly undefined quantities like rep, downtime etc) of damage fairly simply. One doesnt have to be criminally insane to hijack a mailserver ... on the other hand you would have suspicion about someone who burnt down a building housing a mailserver.
Computer crime is something that the law is currently completely ill equipt to deal with. The courts do not understand the technology na dare attempting to apply property laws without considering whether it is appropriate, while being caught up in a media that is more than willing to exploit ignorance for a juicy story with 7 figure damages ...
Let us translate your example to computer programming. "However, I woudln't mind if Perl was removed from the face of the earth. In fact, I woudln't mind of Lisp was removed from the earth (my programming language of choice). " Uurgghh another crappy comparison. "Lets us translate your example in to limer bean varieties". This doesnt address th issue. Spoken language like every other form of communication is a tradeoff between a "standard" and specialization ... "Eskmo" is the best language to describe snow with but not really good for a "general use language" ... a standard is needed for communication between computers its TCP/IP between people on computers its English ...
Er your claim that this is merely another language cycle that we have seen before is flawed as it doesnt take into account the very point of the article ... the internet is changing language in a way we have NOT seen before. Sure the language is changing but it is NOT SPLINTERING. this is largely due to its written form, vocabulary is added not pronunciation therefore is much more resilient to 74!/\/7!/\/9 .... although not invulnerable ;-^
here in Australia basic food stuffs are tax free. Does that mean if i distribute code carved into potatoes that it can't be taxed? Or will it still be deemed equivalent to MS Office?
...IE isn't as intergrated as its supposed to be. WINE can run it ... badly but its getting better.
People have a tendency to jump to nice hi-tech solutions immediately without building them up from root cause. In this case we have Object A requiring information from object B through channel c. Object A requires 2 things 1) object B's location 2) object B's identity. We shall assume that channel c is insecure ... that is A does not have complete control over it. This is way before we even think of encryption as a means to solve this problem. So how would we do this IR? Assuming A and B are people, A could visually (means) verify both B's location and identity. Is this an instance of secure information transfer through an insecure channel (or can this be spoofed)? No, as David Copperfield has shown on numerous occasions. So what should we do to tie down the elusive Mr. Copperfield? We could take blood from him and DNA test it against a sample we "know" to be his. Now take for granted we really do have a known sample of his blood (equivalent to "knowing" you have securely exchanged keys) is this secure? Again no, Gattica people! But it is pretty good (we would have to say good enough ... remember no verification is really un-spoofable). Ok so keeping in mind that no verification of B can actually take place at B's location or under B's control (automatically invalidates a secure transfer) what can B actually give A as verification. The best I can come up with for identity is an encrypted retinal and finger print scan through standard encryption methods. This could be enhanced by also requiring a topological print of the eye (pressure with-in the eye varies such that the likely hood of two topological maps being identical is nearly impossible) so that each verification requires a unique map. Physical location is much harder (actually impossible) since there really is NOTHING about it that is unique. Your X,Y,Z,t co-ordinates in the universe mean nothing without an arbitrary reference point which means that there is no real (as opposed to pseudo or relational) information that exists about it. The best I can offer is an encrypted GPS signal from your retinal scanner ... of course this invalidates the rule that verification cannot occur at your location (you control the box and A cannot independently verify what it receives from B)
NB I realised i jumped to a tech solution at the end without really running the logic but the first bit is really just something to think about
Stop wasting precious bandwidth (and making me waste it which is worse) dont get down on people for their spelling. We're NOT professionals here ... we're geeks, and geeks often type things quickly, get the message across, then move on. Just chill and remember Shakespeare couldn't spell "spurious" if his life depended on it.
Routers ??? For God's sake the technology doesn't exist yet! Any speculation as to how quantum technology will interact with existing ones is probably irrelevent. The techs are just completely different. We will probably first see QC in the same sort of tasks as we first saw mainframes ... big data crunching machines. Their application in crypto will at first be useful only in physically securing data (host data encryption) not in key exchanges (..its certainly debatable but ... there's no such thing as secure key exchange through an untrusted line)and not in secure transmission. As another thought keep in mind that your government is approximately 10 years ahead of academia in crypto research ...