You could stop someone from physically trespassing on your property.
Not if the person is determined enough to break in.
Look at a jail, they stop people from trespassing all the time.
Without using the law, they would be unable to do that. I could break into a jail if I really wanted to. But I'd get caught, and probably shot, as a result. Without physical property laws, we'd have chaos. Without laws against hacking, we wouldn't.
You can't tap into a cable line that is on your property, because you don't own the mineral rights to the land most likely.
Mineral rights to the land? How does that apply?
I mean, by the same logic you should be able to tap into the electrical pole and bypass the meter because it's on "your" property
Oh, I see what you're saying. I was referring to a cable which was entering your house. As in, you pay for basic cable and then "steal" HBO. I don't think that should be illegal.
I notice that this excerpt doesn't include any provisions for actual APPROVAL of the methods or hack that will be used by the copyright owner.
Thank God for that. There's no way I'd trust any government official or agency to choose which hacks are allowed and which aren't.
"We're going to douse their server with gasoline and set it on fire."
Well, you make a good point, and the law should be modified to only give immunity for specific laws (DoS attacks, presumably), so as not to allow something like murder. But, your particular example "impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106" and isn't "reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106" It would also "[cause] economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106"
But murder, for instance, probably wouldn't fall under either of those two exceptions.
How many times have people here wailed at the non-tech press for using the word "hack" to describe what most would technically term a "crack"?
Exactly! Here I thought Princeton was "[exploring] the basements, roof ledges, and steam tunnels of a large, institutional building, to the dismay of Physical Plant workers and (since this is usually performed at educational institutions) the Campus Police!"
so if i took my privately owned can of spray paint, and painted a big, hideous smily face on your privately owned house, that's not vandalism, because it's all private?
No, that's not what I mean. By trespassing physically on my private property, you are crossing the line. Why does it make a difference that the trespass is physical? I guess it's a matter of the fact that I can easily stop you from sending me bits, I can't ever stop you from physically trespassing.
if i used privately owned equipment to tap into a privately owned cable system so i could watch hbo, that's fine?
Absolutely, assuming part of the cable system you are tapping into is located on your own private property.
how about if i used that privately owned equipment to screw up other people's cable service?
I don't think there should be a law against that. Certainly not a federal law. It should be up to the cable company to police that.
And even if you are found to be committing a crime, since when were victims allowed to decide and administer punishment?
This bill does not allow "victims" to administer punishment, it allows "victims" to defend themselves.
For a real life analogy, imagine a bill allowing people to tear down signs placed on a public bulletin boards which are slanderous.
The only question I have with the bill is whether the term "unauthorized distribution" includes distribution which is not authorized by the copyright holder, but is allowed under fair use or the Audio Home Recording Act.
Only then should you write a letter to your representative. And be sure to back up your statments very thoroughly if they contradict Berman's in any way.
If you'd like to have someone try to tear holes in your argument, feel free to reply here:).
The MPAA would hire a couple of "consulting" companies to carry out these acts.
These consulting firms would attack and disable some script kiddies computer who is serving MP3s.
More likely they'll just make repeated requests for files they own. Add in fake ACKs so that you don't have to bother wasting your own bandwidth downloading the crap and you can probably successfully take down just about any file sharer.
I'm sure the script kiddies internet provider will just be pleased as punch that the MPAA just hacked one of it's customers and possibly used a DoS attack to do it (there by degrading the quality of service for all their clients)
I would guess most file sharers are already using all of their available upstream bandwidth, so this isn't exactly going to be the MPAA's fault.
As of a few days ago if citizen do these same things they can be considered terrorists and subject to a maximum sentance of life in prison.
No... You can get life in prison for recklessly causing someone's death, not for "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of [a] copyrighted work"
why should something that serves no purpose other than to cause damage not be illegal if both the originator and the target are in the same country?
The question should not be why shouldn't there be a law. The question should be why must there be a law? The federal government of the U.S. certainly does not have jurisdiction over the internet. It's simply not one of the enumerated powers in the constituion.
we're just talking about making an activity that serves no purpose than to cause damage within a single country illegal. what's the problem with that?
The biggest problem is that enforcement costs money, and the federal government should not go around policing private systems. If I set up a network between my house and my friends house, should the government be able to regulate it? What if I set it up with 10 friends? What if it's my whole town?
The internet is a private system, it should be protected through contract law, not federal regulation.
Sure they can - what if the DoS affected a hospital network, or managed to disable a system responsbile for controlling a nuclear power plant, or a train, or the air traffic control system?
Then A) the hospital or nuclear power plant or train or air traffic control system should be sued for negligence and B) the DoS attacker can be sued for murder or attempted murder or terrorism or whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, I deny that such a situation is possible in the first place.
You are using a standard response when any script kiddie was caught - "I wasn't doing any harm" - but the truth is you have no idea whose other electrons are buzzing around out there.
Life critical systems should not rely on the internet, plain and simple. Also, there are already laws in place to cover this. Finally, it is outside the enumerated powers of the constitution to have laws regarding this.
all we're saying is that activities which serve no other purpose than to damage other people's property and custmer base and cost them money should be illegal.
if i mailed a bomb within my country it would certainly be illegal, even if nobody was hurt in the explosion. there would still be property damage. if i mailed a bomb to another country, that would most certainly be illegal. why should the internet be so fundamentally different legally?
Because bits can't physically hurt or kill people.
You (or some script kiddie) have ZERO right to impede the use of MY computer.
I disagree.
Your rights end at the tip of my cat5, and unless you can come up with some reason why your attacking me better serves the public good than my being online, you have no business interfering with mine.
Simple, I don't want my tax money going to policing your internet connection. DoS attacks should be solved technically, not via government laws.
I don't think any government should have jurisdiction over the internet. I believe this philosophically, but also practically, because I don't want my tax money going to protect the interests of corporate ISPs. ISPs should police themselves, by unplugging the connections of DoS attackers.
A copyright owner shall not be liable under subsection (a) for an act to which subsection (a) applies only if (A) the copyright owner has notified the Department of Justice, in such manner as the Attorney General shall specify, of the specific technologies the copyright owner intends to use to impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of the owner's copyrighted works over a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network; and (B) the notification under paragraph (1) was made at least 7 days before the copyright owner engaged in the act.
So yeah, Joe Sixpack can "impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of [Joe Sixpack's] works over a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network," but only if Joe Sixpack registers with the federal government.
Personally I think this bill is a step in the right direction. DoS attacks shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
Interesting that this virus comes out so soon after the House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers. If the 911 lines get tied up, and someone dies as a result, can the virus writer be charged with murder?
"If a hack causes death the hacker can never be the only one to blame IMHO." - AVee
I guess in this case it could, unless you want to blame the user for hooking his computer up to a phone line.
Slashdot Mirror
You could stop someone from physically trespassing on your property.
Not if the person is determined enough to break in.
Look at a jail, they stop people from trespassing all the time.
Without using the law, they would be unable to do that. I could break into a jail if I really wanted to. But I'd get caught, and probably shot, as a result. Without physical property laws, we'd have chaos. Without laws against hacking, we wouldn't.
You can't tap into a cable line that is on your property, because you don't own the mineral rights to the land most likely.
Mineral rights to the land? How does that apply?
I mean, by the same logic you should be able to tap into the electrical pole and bypass the meter because it's on "your" property
Oh, I see what you're saying. I was referring to a cable which was entering your house. As in, you pay for basic cable and then "steal" HBO. I don't think that should be illegal.
I notice that this excerpt doesn't include any provisions for actual APPROVAL of the methods or hack that will be used by the copyright owner.
Thank God for that. There's no way I'd trust any government official or agency to choose which hacks are allowed and which aren't.
"We're going to douse their server with gasoline and set it on fire."
Well, you make a good point, and the law should be modified to only give immunity for specific laws (DoS attacks, presumably), so as not to allow something like murder. But, your particular example "impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106" and isn't "reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106" It would also "[cause] economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106"
But murder, for instance, probably wouldn't fall under either of those two exceptions.
I get outside plenty. By the way, I know your IP address.
Slashdot is professional (as in, for-profit bastard corporation). I'm not.
If you don't like the look (a parody of slashdot), change it in your preferences. As for comment posting... Shit, I must have broken that yesterday.
How many times have people here wailed at the non-tech press for using the word "hack" to describe what most would technically term a "crack"?
Exactly! Here I thought Princeton was "[exploring] the basements, roof ledges, and steam tunnels of a large, institutional building, to the dismay of Physical Plant workers and (since this is usually performed at educational institutions) the Campus Police!"
What makes you think that'd stop them?
The fact that they'd get broken into every 5 minutes.
This way stupid schools won't be tempted to use them as security codes.
so if i took my privately owned can of spray paint, and painted a big, hideous smily face on your privately owned house, that's not vandalism, because it's all private?
No, that's not what I mean. By trespassing physically on my private property, you are crossing the line. Why does it make a difference that the trespass is physical? I guess it's a matter of the fact that I can easily stop you from sending me bits, I can't ever stop you from physically trespassing.
if i used privately owned equipment to tap into a privately owned cable system so i could watch hbo, that's fine?
Absolutely, assuming part of the cable system you are tapping into is located on your own private property.
how about if i used that privately owned equipment to screw up other people's cable service?
I don't think there should be a law against that. Certainly not a federal law. It should be up to the cable company to police that.
And even if you are found to be committing a crime, since when were victims allowed to decide and administer punishment?
This bill does not allow "victims" to administer punishment, it allows "victims" to defend themselves.
For a real life analogy, imagine a bill allowing people to tear down signs placed on a public bulletin boards which are slanderous.
The only question I have with the bill is whether the term "unauthorized distribution" includes distribution which is not authorized by the copyright holder, but is allowed under fair use or the Audio Home Recording Act.
FIRST, read the bill. Second, read Berman's analysis. Third, read Berman's statement.
Only then should you write a letter to your representative. And be sure to back up your statments very thoroughly if they contradict Berman's in any way.
If you'd like to have someone try to tear holes in your argument, feel free to reply here :).
The MPAA would hire a couple of "consulting" companies to carry out these acts.
These consulting firms would attack and disable some script kiddies computer who is serving MP3s.
More likely they'll just make repeated requests for files they own. Add in fake ACKs so that you don't have to bother wasting your own bandwidth downloading the crap and you can probably successfully take down just about any file sharer.
I'm sure the script kiddies internet provider will just be pleased as punch that the MPAA just hacked one of it's customers and possibly used a DoS attack to do it (there by degrading the quality of service for all their clients)
I would guess most file sharers are already using all of their available upstream bandwidth, so this isn't exactly going to be the MPAA's fault.
As of a few days ago if citizen do these same things they can be considered terrorists and subject to a maximum sentance of life in prison.
No... You can get life in prison for recklessly causing someone's death, not for "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of [a] copyrighted work"
why should something that serves no purpose other than to cause damage not be illegal if both the originator and the target are in the same country?
The question should not be why shouldn't there be a law. The question should be why must there be a law? The federal government of the U.S. certainly does not have jurisdiction over the internet. It's simply not one of the enumerated powers in the constituion.
we're just talking about making an activity that serves no purpose than to cause damage within a single country illegal. what's the problem with that?
The biggest problem is that enforcement costs money, and the federal government should not go around policing private systems. If I set up a network between my house and my friends house, should the government be able to regulate it? What if I set it up with 10 friends? What if it's my whole town?
The internet is a private system, it should be protected through contract law, not federal regulation.
Sure they can - what if the DoS affected a hospital network, or managed to disable a system responsbile for controlling a nuclear power plant, or a train, or the air traffic control system?
Then A) the hospital or nuclear power plant or train or air traffic control system should be sued for negligence and B) the DoS attacker can be sued for murder or attempted murder or terrorism or whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, I deny that such a situation is possible in the first place.
You are using a standard response when any script kiddie was caught - "I wasn't doing any harm" - but the truth is you have no idea whose other electrons are buzzing around out there.
Life critical systems should not rely on the internet, plain and simple. Also, there are already laws in place to cover this. Finally, it is outside the enumerated powers of the constitution to have laws regarding this.
all we're saying is that activities which serve no other purpose than to damage other people's property and custmer base and cost them money should be illegal.
Right, and all I'm saying is that I disagree.
if i mailed a bomb within my country it would certainly be illegal, even if nobody was hurt in the explosion. there would still be property damage. if i mailed a bomb to another country, that would most certainly be illegal. why should the internet be so fundamentally different legally?
Because bits can't physically hurt or kill people.
You (or some script kiddie) have ZERO right to impede the use of MY computer.
I disagree.
Your rights end at the tip of my cat5, and unless you can come up with some reason why your attacking me better serves the public good than my being online, you have no business interfering with mine.
Simple, I don't want my tax money going to policing your internet connection. DoS attacks should be solved technically, not via government laws.
so tell me -- why shouldn't it be illegal?
I don't think any government should have jurisdiction over the internet. I believe this philosophically, but also practically, because I don't want my tax money going to protect the interests of corporate ISPs. ISPs should police themselves, by unplugging the connections of DoS attackers.
The Register is actually looking forward to this becoming law!
After reading the bill, and then reading the Register article, it becomes obvious that Thomas Greene didn't even bother reading the bill.
Oh well, IRC was fun while it lasted.
So yeah, Joe Sixpack can "impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of [Joe Sixpack's] works over a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network," but only if Joe Sixpack registers with the federal government.
Personally I think this bill is a step in the right direction. DoS attacks shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
I want to be able to read slashdot stories and post slashdot articles on kuro5hin. Why can't the FTC step in and force slashdot to do that?
What's that? Slashdot would lose ad revenue? Isn't that the same thing AOL is saying?
Don't believe everything you read on the internet... Err, umm, except slashdot articles.
Interesting that this virus comes out so soon after the House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers. If the 911 lines get tied up, and someone dies as a result, can the virus writer be charged with murder?
"If a hack causes death the hacker can never be the only one to blame IMHO." - AVee
I guess in this case it could, unless you want to blame the user for hooking his computer up to a phone line.