A large percentage of rapes and murders occur outside the USA, too. Perhpas we should repeal the laws against them, since they're obviously not going to help anyone.
I think it's pretty clear that falsely representing a message as being sent by a legitimate business doesn't mean that you're honestly telling someone who you are but that you're not a "legitimate business". You're claiming to represent another, actual, legitimate business, when in fact you don't. If I say I'm from geoffreyspear.com and I'm a bank, I'm not violating this proposed law, I'm just a liar and probably a fraud. If I say I'm from Citibank, that's a violation of this law.
Read the bill. It wouldn't even make it illegal for the Kerry campaign to put up a website pretending to belong to the Bush campaign to solicit donations. (That would be illegal for other reasons of course, I'm talking about this specific bill.)
It makes it illegal to create a website purporting to belong to a legitimate company to collect information that would identify you to that company (such as your account number, or a username and password for their site).
As for misuse of laws, that's not an argument against passing any laws. It's an argument for writing better laws, which is hard to make if you admit you haven't read the law you're complaining about.
No. I'm saying that reading a story in a tabloid might make obsessed people happy, but that doesn't mean that the criminal the story's about was acting "for the public good."
Sorry, but for how long now have banks and credit card companies been saying to their customers that under no circumstances do they make unsolicited phone calls or send unsolicited emails to you?
Umm, since a little while after phishing schemes started to become a problem. They're trying to educate consumers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish the criminals who make it necessary for them to repeatedly point this out.
Not really. I'd imagine the fact that the Federal Chancellor's office gave permission to conduct what could be considered espionage would be enough, even if the people they gave permission to were unable to get any information at all.
The actual taking of information is a security issue on NSA's end and is certainly an embarrassment they'd want to cover up. The involvement of a foreign government is another matter entirely.
A patent is not a patent until it's granted by the government, at which time it's published. A plan to patent something may be a trade secret, but that's orthagonal to patent law. The trade secret is the same whether the company plans to apply for a patent or not.
I hope you've got good malpractice insurance, or the people you consult for are as ignorant as you.
And the public obsesses over any criminal act involving celebrities. Does that mean it's for the public good if some nutjob stalks Anna Kournikova? After all, it makes for good tabloid stories.
A reasonable person will not think an email from his or her bank telling them that there account has been compromised is suspect. They'll be pissed off that someone stole from them, and click on the links to log in to their bank's website to check on the damage.
Not everyone can be a genius like you. Fortunately, not everyone is a sociopath like you either, believing that all of the pathetic inferior humans deserve to be defrauded because they're not as smart as you.
To criminalize Internet scams involving fraudulently obtaining personal information, commonly known as phishing.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 28, 2005
Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To criminalize Internet scams involving fraudulently obtaining personal information, commonly known as phishing.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anti-phishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) American society is increasingly dependent on the Internet for communications, entertainment, commerce, and banking.
(2) For the Internet to reach its full potential in these and other respects, it must continue to be a trustworthy medium. This means, for example, that Internet users should be able to trust the stated origin of Internet communications and the stated destination of Internet hyperlinks.
(3) Internet users are increasingly subjected to scams based on misleading or false communications that trick the user into sending money, or trick the user into revealing enough information to enable various forms of identify theft that result in financial loss.
(4) One class of such scams, called `phishing' , uses false e-mail return addresses, stolen graphics, stylistic imitation, misleading or disguised hyperlinks, so-called `social engineering', and other artifices to trick users into revealing personally identifiable information. After obtaining this information, the `phisher' then uses the information to create unlawful identification documents and/or to unlawfully obtain money or property.
(5) These crimes victimize not only the individuals whose information is stolen, but the entire online community, including millions of people who rely on the integrity of the Internet's system of addresses and hyperlinks.
SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
(a) In General- Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1351. Internet fraud
`(a) Website- Whoever knowingly, with the intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal or State crime of fraud or identity theft--
`(1) creates or procures the creation of a website or domain name that represents itself as a legitimate online business, without the authority or approval of the registered owner of the actual website or domain name of the legitimate online business; and
`(2) uses that website or domain name to induce, request, ask, or solicit any person to transmit, submit, or provide any means of identification to another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned up to 5 years, or both.
`(b) Messenger- Whoever knowingly, with the intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal or State crime of fraud or identity theft sends any electronic mail message that--
`(1) falsely represents itself as being sent by a legitimate online business;
`(2) includes an Internet information location tool that refers or links users to an online location on the World Wide Web that falsely purports to belong to or be associated with such legitimate online business; and
`(3) induces, requests, asks, or solicits a recipient of the electronic mail message directly or indirectly to provide, submit, or relate any means of identification to another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned up to 5 years, or both.
Not only are you cynical, you're completely delusional, too.
The Supreme Court overturns very few laws. Congress passes plenty of laws. You have no idea what you're talking about, and should stop wasting everyone's time by posting such stupid messages.
Yeah! And the damn nanny state needs to get rid of the stupid anti-burglary laws too!
If people are stupid enough to live in homes that aren't as secure as a military installation, they deserve to have their stuff stolen. How dare the state infringe the civil liberties of smart people like me by making it illegal to break into your house and steal stuff, if you're dumb enough to have glass windows that I can just shatter with a brick?
This law wouldn't make it illegal to provide false information to a website, whether the website was asking for your opinion on a political issue or not.
Or are you suggesting that politicians are setting up fraudulent websites to get people to falsely support their issues? Sure it would be sleazy for them to do so, but since it would be completely pointless I don't understand why you think they would. Members of Congress might make their decisions based on polling their constituents, but they don't have to fudge poll results; they're allowed to vote against the wishes of their constituents all they want. The only poll that really matters is done in November, and if they've pissed off too many voters in the previous 2 or 6 years, they lose their job.
You can't protect information about your business plans with copyright, and patent law does not prohibit someone from discussing your patent. There's no such thing as a secret patent. You can't use the methods covered by the patent legally, but you can sure as hell publish them as much as you want.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Copyright and patent law are completely irrelevant.
Grandparent poster asked if it was ethical to attract your competitors' employees. Of course it is.
As for leaving one company to go to a competitor, I see no problem with that. It's not like corporations have loyalty to their employees and guarantee a job until retirement. Why should employees have the loyalty to stay with an employer until the employer decides the employee is no longer wanted? Is someone morally bound to stay with one company that they're not happy at if the only companies who would pay the same or better money for their skill set happen to be competitors?
Now, certainly to give trade secrets from your former employer to your new employer would be unethical and most likely illegal, but an employer can not reasonably claim that all of their employee's knowledge and skills can be classified as trade secrets.
I'd hope the people at Google are smart enough not to hire someone away because they hope to steal some future Microsoft product. But regardless of what you think of Microsoft, you have to admit they employ some smart people, and Google wants smart people. Are they supposed to find smart people with no prior experience in software development and teach them how to program?
Um, no. No more so than if I say I'm not moving right now I'm "assuming" the Earth is standing still. I'm talking about a frame of reference, which is understood to every single person on the Earth except you.
Do you claim that your trip to work this morning involved moving 30,000 miles?
Slashdot Mirror
A large percentage of rapes and murders occur outside the USA, too. Perhpas we should repeal the laws against them, since they're obviously not going to help anyone.
I'm perfectly able to connect to riaa.org right now. Doesn't look like what they've done has been very effective, and it's not going to stop phishers.
I think it's pretty clear that falsely representing a message as being sent by a legitimate business doesn't mean that you're honestly telling someone who you are but that you're not a "legitimate business". You're claiming to represent another, actual, legitimate business, when in fact you don't. If I say I'm from geoffreyspear.com and I'm a bank, I'm not violating this proposed law, I'm just a liar and probably a fraud. If I say I'm from Citibank, that's a violation of this law.
It makes it illegal to create a website purporting to belong to a legitimate company to collect information that would identify you to that company (such as your account number, or a username and password for their site).
As for misuse of laws, that's not an argument against passing any laws. It's an argument for writing better laws, which is hard to make if you admit you haven't read the law you're complaining about.
No. I'm saying that reading a story in a tabloid might make obsessed people happy, but that doesn't mean that the criminal the story's about was acting "for the public good."
Umm, since a little while after phishing schemes started to become a problem. They're trying to educate consumers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish the criminals who make it necessary for them to repeatedly point this out.
Doh! Ok, I should have checked on that, even though it's seemed completely obvious that they would be.
The actual taking of information is a security issue on NSA's end and is certainly an embarrassment they'd want to cover up. The involvement of a foreign government is another matter entirely.
I hope you've got good malpractice insurance, or the people you consult for are as ignorant as you.
And the public obsesses over any criminal act involving celebrities. Does that mean it's for the public good if some nutjob stalks Anna Kournikova? After all, it makes for good tabloid stories.
The Austrian government gave someone permission to hack the NSA? That's got "serious diplomatic incident" written all over it.
Not everyone can be a genius like you. Fortunately, not everyone is a sociopath like you either, believing that all of the pathetic inferior humans deserve to be defrauded because they're not as smart as you.
Anti-phishing Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
.
.
S 472 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 472
To criminalize Internet scams involving fraudulently obtaining personal information, commonly known as phishing
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 28, 2005
Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To criminalize Internet scams involving fraudulently obtaining personal information, commonly known as phishing
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anti-phishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) American society is increasingly dependent on the Internet for communications, entertainment, commerce, and banking.
(2) For the Internet to reach its full potential in these and other respects, it must continue to be a trustworthy medium. This means, for example, that Internet users should be able to trust the stated origin of Internet communications and the stated destination of Internet hyperlinks.
(3) Internet users are increasingly subjected to scams based on misleading or false communications that trick the user into sending money, or trick the user into revealing enough information to enable various forms of identify theft that result in financial loss.
(4) One class of such scams, called `phishing' , uses false e-mail return addresses, stolen graphics, stylistic imitation, misleading or disguised hyperlinks, so-called `social engineering', and other artifices to trick users into revealing personally identifiable information. After obtaining this information, the `phisher' then uses the information to create unlawful identification documents and/or to unlawfully obtain money or property.
(5) These crimes victimize not only the individuals whose information is stolen, but the entire online community, including millions of people who rely on the integrity of the Internet's system of addresses and hyperlinks.
SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
(a) In General- Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1351. Internet fraud
`(a) Website- Whoever knowingly, with the intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal or State crime of fraud or identity theft--
`(1) creates or procures the creation of a website or domain name that represents itself as a legitimate online business, without the authority or approval of the registered owner of the actual website or domain name of the legitimate online business; and
`(2) uses that website or domain name to induce, request, ask, or solicit any person to transmit, submit, or provide any means of identification to another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned up to 5 years, or both.
`(b) Messenger- Whoever knowingly, with the intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal or State crime of fraud or identity theft sends any electronic mail message that--
`(1) falsely represents itself as being sent by a legitimate online business;
`(2) includes an Internet information location tool that refers or links users to an online location on the World Wide Web that falsely purports to belong to or be associated with such legitimate online business; and
`(3) induces, requests, asks, or solicits a recipient of the electronic mail message directly or indirectly to provide, submit, or relate any means of identification to another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned up to 5 years, or both.
`(c) Definitions- In
The Supreme Court overturns very few laws. Congress passes plenty of laws. You have no idea what you're talking about, and should stop wasting everyone's time by posting such stupid messages.
If people are stupid enough to live in homes that aren't as secure as a military installation, they deserve to have their stuff stolen. How dare the state infringe the civil liberties of smart people like me by making it illegal to break into your house and steal stuff, if you're dumb enough to have glass windows that I can just shatter with a brick?
This law wouldn't make it illegal to provide false information to a website, whether the website was asking for your opinion on a political issue or not.
Or are you suggesting that politicians are setting up fraudulent websites to get people to falsely support their issues? Sure it would be sleazy for them to do so, but since it would be completely pointless I don't understand why you think they would. Members of Congress might make their decisions based on polling their constituents, but they don't have to fudge poll results; they're allowed to vote against the wishes of their constituents all they want. The only poll that really matters is done in November, and if they've pissed off too many voters in the previous 2 or 6 years, they lose their job.
Umm, ok.
And if someone burns down your house, you should have done a better job of fireproofing it. Obviously the arsonist shouldn't be held responsible.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Copyright and patent law are completely irrelevant.
As for leaving one company to go to a competitor, I see no problem with that. It's not like corporations have loyalty to their employees and guarantee a job until retirement. Why should employees have the loyalty to stay with an employer until the employer decides the employee is no longer wanted? Is someone morally bound to stay with one company that they're not happy at if the only companies who would pay the same or better money for their skill set happen to be competitors?
Now, certainly to give trade secrets from your former employer to your new employer would be unethical and most likely illegal, but an employer can not reasonably claim that all of their employee's knowledge and skills can be classified as trade secrets.
I'd hope the people at Google are smart enough not to hire someone away because they hope to steal some future Microsoft product. But regardless of what you think of Microsoft, you have to admit they employ some smart people, and Google wants smart people. Are they supposed to find smart people with no prior experience in software development and teach them how to program?
That's like asking if it's ethical for there to be more than 1 company on the planet.
How informative. It's unfortunate the war ended 9 years before a B52 ever flew, or that training would have been a lot more valuable.
Idiot.
Do you claim that your trip to work this morning involved moving 30,000 miles?
I know, let's get all of the smart, thoughtful Americans to move to Japan. That should fix America really quick. Right.