All kinds of chemicals and drugs fall under this classification. You can't go into a drug store and buy heroin but a doctor can prescribe it for you. They are not illegal to have but require licensing, registration etc.
Who decides who can own a portscanner? Under what circumstances? What do you do about people who write their own? Do you outlaw the distribution of Free Software that has this capability?
Go back re-read the thread. Nobody said anything about walking by and looking at the house.
I did.
The analogy in question is snooping around the house, taking pictures, rattling doors etc.
I'm sorry but that simply is *not* an apt analogy.
Re:Democracy is what *citizens* should demand
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 1
By your line of logic knitting together the United States would have been a utopian fantasy of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington -- yet they succeeded in founding the United States of America.
And what happened? The protections granted in the Constitution have been trampled, government has been centralized *far* beyond what was ever imagined by the founding fathers, they're interfering in our lives, and they're meddling in the lives of millions all over the world. If forming a national government brought us this much grief, what will a global government bring us?
Re:If democratic and elected, not so sad after all
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 1
When have you ever seen a government deal with a problem? I've only seen government make them worse.
Do you really believe people will continue to spend a lot of time and money if there is NO protection for whatever they create?
Yes, and so did the founding fathers. Copyright was intended to be a short term monopoly power for the purpose of recouping publishing costs and not to "entice" artists to be artistic. That would be like trying to get people to breathe by offering them money!
Tell it to Metallica and many other artists who vigorously opposed Napster or do are you talking about these artist who haven't made it big and are hoping to one day become like Metallica?
Uhh, when did Metallica rise to a level where they can be referred to as "artists"?
Simple. Call up the ISP and ask for permission to do a portscan. If they don't let you move, on to another one.
You're missing the point. This discussion is about making the use or possession of a portscanning tool *illegal*. The government will *not* say, "So long as you aren't using it for some nefarious purpose, it's OK." The government doesn't work like that. They're likely to do something competely stupid like outlawing system calls related to TCP or some such nonsense.
Furthermore, there's a legal principle to be stood for here. A tool that *could* be used for immoral purposes but doesn't *have* to be is not supposed to be illegal. Like DeCSS, for example.
Of course, much of the Internet *was* built with tax money (DARPA). But that wasn't really what I was aiming at. If you are standing on a highway (or even in your front yard) you are still in full public view.
Exactly! I wanted to make sure the bank I was thinking of using would keep my money safe, so I drove by at 3 am, and rattled the front door to make sure they remembered to lock it.
Of course, a bank is not a TCP port, and a port scan is not "rattling the front door". These analogies are completely incorrect.
Yep. But your ports aren't property. They aren't even corporeal.
Interesting. Please point me to the legal agreement I signed which states that - you ought to have no difficulty if your assertion is true.
It has nothing to do with a legal agreement. The Internet is a public internetwork by definition. It's like standing on a public highway.
My system is my system, for use by me and those whom I authorise to use it, and NO-ONE ELSE.
I suggest you disconnect your machine from the Internet. Or buy a good firewall, if you want to be more reasonable about things.
If you portscan my system, I wanna know WHY, and you better have a bloody good reason for it.
Red herring. We're talking about a law that forbids port scanning of *any system*, NOT YOUR SYSTEM. And, believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to check the security of ports on other hosts. Like checking up on your ISPs security claims. Or checking your OWN systems. And if you don't think that would be illegal too, you don't know the government very well.;-)
Also, are you sure that none of those computers was ever used for classified information?
Yes. If you know anything about the way the NSA, CIA, and DoD operate, you know that they destroy all classified equipment *in-house*. They don't ever let *that* kind of stuff even leave the building.
When dealing with national security, one should generally err on the side of caution.
True, although I have to say that "national security" is the biggest lie that ever was told. It's been used repeatedly to engage in things so immoral that I just want to puke.
Finally, for all you sysadmins and security experts out there, how would you like it if politicians with no computer knowledge whatsoever were second-guessing all your security decisions
That's what this is trying to fix. As the article states, the *outgoing Secretary of Defense* made the decision that all computer storage equipment, regardless of original use, must be destroyed (instead of wiped with appropriate techniques). This equipment had already been given to schools.
Slashdot Mirror
Who decides who can own a portscanner? Under what circumstances? What do you do about people who write their own? Do you outlaw the distribution of Free Software that has this capability?
I did.
The analogy in question is snooping around the house, taking pictures, rattling doors etc.
I'm sorry but that simply is *not* an apt analogy.
And what happened? The protections granted in the Constitution have been trampled, government has been centralized *far* beyond what was ever imagined by the founding fathers, they're interfering in our lives, and they're meddling in the lives of millions all over the world. If forming a national government brought us this much grief, what will a global government bring us?
When have you ever seen a government deal with a problem? I've only seen government make them worse.
Yes, and so did the founding fathers. Copyright was intended to be a short term monopoly power for the purpose of recouping publishing costs and not to "entice" artists to be artistic. That would be like trying to get people to breathe by offering them money!
Uhh, when did Metallica rise to a level where they can be referred to as "artists"?
What you have just described is the DMCA.
Who said anything about loitering? If I walk by your house and look at it, the Police have no business bothering me.
You're missing the point. This discussion is about making the use or possession of a portscanning tool *illegal*. The government will *not* say, "So long as you aren't using it for some nefarious purpose, it's OK." The government doesn't work like that. They're likely to do something competely stupid like outlawing system calls related to TCP or some such nonsense.
Furthermore, there's a legal principle to be stood for here. A tool that *could* be used for immoral purposes but doesn't *have* to be is not supposed to be illegal. Like DeCSS, for example.
Well, I'm expecting those responsible to be tried, convicted, and punished for their crimes.
Look here.
Of course, much of the Internet *was* built with tax money (DARPA). But that wasn't really what I was aiming at. If you are standing on a highway (or even in your front yard) you are still in full public view.
Of course, a bank is not a TCP port, and a port scan is not "rattling the front door". These analogies are completely incorrect.
Yep. But your ports aren't property. They aren't even corporeal.
Interesting. Please point me to the legal agreement I signed which states that - you ought to have no difficulty if your assertion is true.
It has nothing to do with a legal agreement. The Internet is a public internetwork by definition. It's like standing on a public highway.
My system is my system, for use by me and those whom I authorise to use it, and NO-ONE ELSE.
I suggest you disconnect your machine from the Internet. Or buy a good firewall, if you want to be more reasonable about things.
If you portscan my system, I wanna know WHY, and you better have a bloody good reason for it.
Red herring. We're talking about a law that forbids port scanning of *any system*, NOT YOUR SYSTEM. And, believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to check the security of ports on other hosts. Like checking up on your ISPs security claims. Or checking your OWN systems. And if you don't think that would be illegal too, you don't know the government very well. ;-)
And if port scanning is "done from the sidewalk"?
Not necessarily.
and such people will call the police. The police might take you downtown and have a talk with you.
I would consider that kind of police action to be abuse of power. We obviously have different ideas of what appropriate governmental power is.
Every crime begins in the mind. Should minds be against the law?
Anybody who does a portscan is doing it because they want to hack your system. There is no other reason to do one.
And what about the suggestion that portscans should be used to verify the security claims of ISPs before subscribing.
I'll bet you believe in "guilty until proven innocent" too, don't you?
Huh? Try making some sense.
This made me laugh. Portscanning and murder are the same thing?
Elaborate.
Yes. If you know anything about the way the NSA, CIA, and DoD operate, you know that they destroy all classified equipment *in-house*. They don't ever let *that* kind of stuff even leave the building.
When dealing with national security, one should generally err on the side of caution.
True, although I have to say that "national security" is the biggest lie that ever was told. It's been used repeatedly to engage in things so immoral that I just want to puke.
Finally, for all you sysadmins and security experts out there, how would you like it if politicians with no computer knowledge whatsoever were second-guessing all your security decisions
That's what this is trying to fix. As the article states, the *outgoing Secretary of Defense* made the decision that all computer storage equipment, regardless of original use, must be destroyed (instead of wiped with appropriate techniques). This equipment had already been given to schools.
It's a joke: Suck *stops* sucking--Slashdot *starts* sucking. Get it?
I think he's referring to the writers continuing to do it in their spare time because they like to.
Maybe he meant "attack" in the sense of "malicious intent by evil Commie terrorists" and "compromise" in the sense of "kids screwin' around"?