Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hackers are the new lawyers

calebmadrigal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#41

Post by AnthonyMouse »

trjordan wrote: post #5

I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attac…

> In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it.

That doesn't actually work here. If someone attacks you from Russia or China or Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you.

The reason hack back is unwise and unnecessary is that you don't need deterrence to prevent cyber attacks. In meatspace anybody with a rock and two hands can steal your television and the defenses necessary to prevent that are significantly more expensive than relying on the state to use prison as a deterrent.

But it's a lot more practical to maintain a secure digital system than a secure physical system, because digital systems fail closed rather than fail open. If you can't pick a physical lock you can still break a window or bust down the door, but the equivalent brute force against digital systems yields only denial of service rather than unauthorized access.

That doesn't mean you can't screw it up. Possible to succeed is not the same as impossible to fail. But it means it's possible to have a good enough defense that you require no offense.

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#42

Post by leohutson »

sqeaky wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You encounter a computer system. You just can't tell if it's legal to access it or not. I find this point of view fascinating. Walking down the street, do you have any trouble telling which buildings are legal to access and which are not? I would posit that there is nothing unclear about the law here. In meat-space, the social norm is clear: you go into other peoples' property only if you have business there, you g…

> In meat-space, the social norm is clear I think it is only clear most of the time. There are plenty of odd situations. I might ask where the restroom is in a retail store and learn I need to walk through a back storage room to get there. What if I walk into a business an it appears empty, as if the sole proprietor just walked out and forgot to lock it. Where exactly is the dividing line between the park or field an…

Absolutely, "paper" trails through and walking along rivers and beaches bordered by private property are other interesting examples of where the law and "norms" of the situation are often pretty blurry. That's just land, computers are a whole other level of complexity, plus the "norms" are not yet decided.

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#44

Post by calebm »

Ileca wrote: post #43

I am disappointed. I thought "Lawyers are the new Knights" was a Serial Experiments Lain reference. Nothing new under Neuromancer's sun.

You know, I just watched Lain for the first time like 3 months ago. It's quite plausible my subconscious was influenced by it.

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#45

Post by Ileca »

calebm wrote: post #44
Ileca wrote: post #43

I am disappointed. I thought "Lawyers are the new Knights" was a Serial Experiments Lain reference. Nothing new under Neuromancer's sun.

You know, I just watched Lain for the first time like 3 months ago. It's quite plausible my subconscious was influenced by it.

When you will design the login button of your site in development with "Open the nExt", you will know for sure you have been influenced. When you start praying Lain before accessing any network, it's time to call a doctor.

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#46

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41
trjordan wrote: post #5

I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attac…

> In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. That doesn't actually work here. If someone attacks you from Russia or China or Nigeria, there are no lawyers that ca…

[deleted]

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#47

Post by [deleted] »

sqeaky wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You encounter a computer system. You just can't tell if it's legal to access it or not. I find this point of view fascinating. Walking down the street, do you have any trouble telling which buildings are legal to access and which are not? I would posit that there is nothing unclear about the law here. In meat-space, the social norm is clear: you go into other peoples' property only if you have business there, you g…

> In meat-space, the social norm is clear I think it is only clear most of the time. There are plenty of odd situations. I might ask where the restroom is in a retail store and learn I need to walk through a back storage room to get there. What if I walk into a business an it appears empty, as if the sole proprietor just walked out and forgot to lock it. Where exactly is the dividing line between the park or field an…

[deleted]

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#49

Post by hienyimba »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41
trjordan wrote: post #5

I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attac…

> In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. That doesn't actually work here. If someone attacks you from Russia or China or Nigeria, there are no lawyers that ca…

> If someone attacks you from Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you.

This statement is all shades of Wrong. In Nigeria at least, I know you can easily report to the Country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which is currently doing a very good job of getting back foreign stolen money through internet scams.

Re: Hackers are the new lawyers

#50

Post by AnthonyMouse »

hienyimba wrote: post #49
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. That doesn't actually work here. If someone attacks you from Russia or China or Nigeria, there are no lawyers that ca…

> If someone attacks you from Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you. This statement is all shades of Wrong. In Nigeria at least, I know you can easily report to the Country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which is currently doing a very good job of getting back foreign stolen money through internet scams.

Your contention supposes that Nigerian scammers are stealing money because they're keen to invest in easily confiscated securities instruments rather than spending the money like it's burning a hole in their pocket. And that the purported successes of the Nigerian "EFCC" are real and typical rather than government propaganda from a government trying to spin their country's association with 419 scams. And that having your money stolen and then going through an international bureaucratic process to maybe get some of it back is in any way comparable to not having it stolen to begin with.

But let's suppose all of that is true. If someone in Nigeria steals your money, you pick up the phone and in five minutes they're in jail and your money is returned. Then you're doing this:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo...

Because there are still many places where no such process is available. Many of the attacks from China are state-sponsored. Many of the attacks from Russia are from organized crime who have law enforcement on payroll. ISIS. You haven't done anything to refute the point, you're just arguing about which examples I should be using this year.

Post reply on HN