I think it's interesting that when Mitnick spoke before the Senate Government Affairs Committee in 2000, he told them that the human side of Federal information security was either minimal at best, or nonexistant. He then went on to outline in his testimony and prepared remarks about how to fix it. In his specific case, I think that his insight is completely analogous to the aformentioned ex-check frauster turned consultant. Moreover, I find it amazing as a testament to the differences between the Administration and many Republicans that Kevin Mitnick was invited to speak by then-Chairman Fred Thompson, a Republican, and the administration is bent on a rather un-Christian (given Mr. Bush's insanely fervent dogmatic foundations for his entire presidency) concept that people like Mitnick can't be forgiven and utilized, but men like John Poindexter (whose conviction was overturned on a technicality, but who nonetheless lied to Congress) or Eliot Abrams can be utilized because they are friends of the family.
That must explain why the Treasury Department lists it as one of its nine bureaus and all of the IRS logos on its website have "Department of the Treasury" right under "Internal Revenue Service." I used to work for the Treasury Department, and had a very good friend who worked at IRS. If it isn't part of Treasury, then there are several thousand federal employees, as well as millions of taxpayers, who were told otherwise in official statements, paperwork, or because they work there.
But no. let's take a group of tax evaders, which is what the people at the link you providedare. At least, they are from a legal POV.
The ALA isn't silencing the mention of subpoenas. Librarians have been ordered to by the DoJ to NOT acknowledged them to account holders upon penalty of criminal charges (i.e., obstruction) in spite of the ALA's utter contempt for the PATRIOT ACT.
The ALA has been trying to get programs similar to what this bookstore is doing enacted across all American Libraries. There are bigger problems enacting this in libraries, however because the government can pull all manner of strings to stop any preventative action on behlaf of individuals' rights. However, they are also a bit busy trying to uphold the First Amendment against this same government alongside the EFF in the government's idiotic notion that public access to information online must be filtered to "protect children."
Actually when they mentioned this on "NOW with Bill Moyers" last night, the director of the Center for Public Integrity who received this draft stated that the DoJ was waiting until the US was at war with Iraq to introduce this bill, when it would have a minimal chance of even being read by Congress before it would immediately get pushed through into law.
Also, the only person in Congress known to have been sent this draft was Speaker Dennis Hastert. When Sen. Chuck Grassley, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee was shown the draft as he was walking into Union Station in D.C. he was outraged that they would even dare draft this when they won't even answers questions from Congress about the USA PATRIOT act itself, and it's been 18 months since that became law.
Why do all the lawyers insist on creating new versions of every law and crime just because they happen to occur in the "digital" realm?
Because the government first must establish that it has jurisdiction over crimes that occur online, and the federal government has taken it upon itself to handle "cyber crime" because of its interstate nature and national implications.
The USSC has to take into account the various circumstances of the crime in the same manner as they must be adjudicated when a defendant is being charged with the crime. The various circumstances should have a significant effect on the sentence because jurisprudence respects that there are varying levels of punishment depending on the specifics of the action taken and on the mindest of the accused. The USSC was told to look at the sentencing guidelines and develop a criteria for establishing a sliding scale of culpability and of appropriate punishment.
The USSC is attempting to develop a criteria where a script kiddie is punished for a less damaging and harmful, but intentional and malicious act by vandalizing a website compared to someone whose actions are malicious and far more serious even though, legally, both acted with malice towards the accomplishment of their respective goals. The USSC must weigh the intent versus the consequences, and decide whether sentencing a person who acted purposefully in a forgettable crime should be preventative to keep them from becoming a more serious threat later (Reality has no place in the law) or if they should be treated less harsh. The effect on their rules regarding intent should reflect the intentions regarding both the crime itself--which is in all likelihood guaranteed to be classified as "purposeful" and thus, malicious, since you can't negligently just break into a computer system--and the effect of the crime itself, as well as any other criminal trangressions which were committed in relation to that crime. The sentencing guidelines go into minutae, and with crimes such as these which have less rigid lines of intent as their physical counterparts, the rules that the USSC establishes have a tremendous effect on whether a possible 20 year sentence is imposed, or if the judge is given leeway in meting out a more rehabilitative sentence even though the intent to commit the crime was the same between the script kiddie being dealt with by a local U.S. Attorney's Office, and a serious threat to security whose ass is being roasted by the U.S. Attorneys in Manhattan or Northern Virginia because they were classified as terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's interesting that when Mitnick spoke before the Senate Government Affairs Committee in 2000, he told them that the human side of Federal information security was either minimal at best, or nonexistant. He then went on to outline in his testimony and prepared remarks about how to fix it. In his specific case, I think that his insight is completely analogous to the aformentioned ex-check frauster turned consultant. Moreover, I find it amazing as a testament to the differences between the Administration and many Republicans that Kevin Mitnick was invited to speak by then-Chairman Fred Thompson, a Republican, and the administration is bent on a rather un-Christian (given Mr. Bush's insanely fervent dogmatic foundations for his entire presidency) concept that people like Mitnick can't be forgiven and utilized, but men like John Poindexter (whose conviction was overturned on a technicality, but who nonetheless lied to Congress) or Eliot Abrams can be utilized because they are friends of the family.
HAHAHAHAHA
That must explain why the Treasury Department lists it as one of its nine bureaus and all of the IRS logos on its website have "Department of the Treasury" right under "Internal Revenue Service." I used to work for the Treasury Department, and had a very good friend who worked at IRS. If it isn't part of Treasury, then there are several thousand federal employees, as well as millions of taxpayers, who were told otherwise in official statements, paperwork, or because they work there.
But no. let's take a group of tax evaders, which is what the people at the link you providedare. At least, they are from a legal POV.
The ALA isn't silencing the mention of subpoenas. Librarians have been ordered to by the DoJ to NOT acknowledged them to account holders upon penalty of criminal charges (i.e., obstruction) in spite of the ALA's utter contempt for the PATRIOT ACT .
The ALA has been trying to get programs similar to what this bookstore is doing enacted across all American Libraries. There are bigger problems enacting this in libraries, however because the government can pull all manner of strings to stop any preventative action on behlaf of individuals' rights. However, they are also a bit busy trying to uphold the First Amendment against this same government alongside the EFF in the government's idiotic notion that public access to information online must be filtered to "protect children."
Actually when they mentioned this on "NOW with Bill Moyers" last night, the director of the Center for Public Integrity who received this draft stated that the DoJ was waiting until the US was at war with Iraq to introduce this bill, when it would have a minimal chance of even being read by Congress before it would immediately get pushed through into law.
Also, the only person in Congress known to have been sent this draft was Speaker Dennis Hastert. When Sen. Chuck Grassley, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee was shown the draft as he was walking into Union Station in D.C. he was outraged that they would even dare draft this when they won't even answers questions from Congress about the USA PATRIOT act itself, and it's been 18 months since that became law.
Because the government first must establish that it has jurisdiction over crimes that occur online, and the federal government has taken it upon itself to handle "cyber crime" because of its interstate nature and national implications. The USSC has to take into account the various circumstances of the crime in the same manner as they must be adjudicated when a defendant is being charged with the crime. The various circumstances should have a significant effect on the sentence because jurisprudence respects that there are varying levels of punishment depending on the specifics of the action taken and on the mindest of the accused. The USSC was told to look at the sentencing guidelines and develop a criteria for establishing a sliding scale of culpability and of appropriate punishment. The USSC is attempting to develop a criteria where a script kiddie is punished for a less damaging and harmful, but intentional and malicious act by vandalizing a website compared to someone whose actions are malicious and far more serious even though, legally, both acted with malice towards the accomplishment of their respective goals. The USSC must weigh the intent versus the consequences, and decide whether sentencing a person who acted purposefully in a forgettable crime should be preventative to keep them from becoming a more serious threat later (Reality has no place in the law) or if they should be treated less harsh. The effect on their rules regarding intent should reflect the intentions regarding both the crime itself--which is in all likelihood guaranteed to be classified as "purposeful" and thus, malicious, since you can't negligently just break into a computer system--and the effect of the crime itself, as well as any other criminal trangressions which were committed in relation to that crime. The sentencing guidelines go into minutae, and with crimes such as these which have less rigid lines of intent as their physical counterparts, the rules that the USSC establishes have a tremendous effect on whether a possible 20 year sentence is imposed, or if the judge is given leeway in meting out a more rehabilitative sentence even though the intent to commit the crime was the same between the script kiddie being dealt with by a local U.S. Attorney's Office, and a serious threat to security whose ass is being roasted by the U.S. Attorneys in Manhattan or Northern Virginia because they were classified as terrorists.