Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#171

Post by csense » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 9:44 PM UTC

Even though it might not have made Aaron's specific case go away, this bill does solve a serious problem with EULA breaches being used for overzealous prosecution.

Say that my ToS / EULA says "By using my product, you agree to hop on one foot while doing so." If some terrible person uses my product without hopping on one foot, then the worst thing that can happen to them in the legal system should be civil actions, namely, I can sue them for breach of contract.

If they can be criminally prosecuted for "hacking" my software/website, that seems to go against the entire concept of having a divide between civil and criminal cases. Only the government should have the power to declare that the specific behavior of failing to hop on one foot is criminal.

Letting any private party set arbitrary rules for any other private party that are enforced by criminal penalties is just nuts.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#172

Post by ScottBurson » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 6:36 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #167

dlitz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computer security, at least while attached to the Internet, doesn't work that way. When all it takes is one attacker anywhere in the world to write a worm that compromises everyone, everyone needs to secure their systems. Some problems really are best solved using technical means. If we stop building systems that can be exploited by arbitrary outsiders (yes, this is possible, and probably not that expensive in the lo…

The idea that abusing people's computers to disable their businesses or gain access to confidential information should be legal because "that problem is best solved using technical means" is so hostile to my perspective that there's probably little chance of us learning anything from each other by debating it.

For the record, that was not my thrust. (Can't speak for dlitz.)

I was just surprised at your suggestion that better laws would reduce your workload at Matasano.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#173

Post by spinlocked » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 12:27 AM UTC

BrokenPipe wrote: post #151

spinlocked wrote: post #149

Lets just sit back and revel in the irony of programmers discussing broad fixes to federal laws, based on insights from reddit comments. To all the armchair legal experts of HN, here's a challenge: draft legislation that fixes what you propose and post it here.If you can't do that, you are not qualified to comment on the matter. The EFF has addressed the technology aspects of this. You have ascended into general purp…

It's quite disturbing that people expert in technology (such as HN visitors are) should not comment on the matter because they have no 'law' qualification. Is this 'law' thinghy you are talking about something that only applies to people with 'law' qualifications? Oh no you say? it applies to everyone ? OMG! Here's my draft legislation: get rid of the laws used to incriminate Aaron as they are crazy, overreaching and…

My 3 year old niece is far more articulate than you. I'm serious, you're an embarrassment to this board.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#174

Post by dlitz » Wed, Jan 23, 2013, 3:55 AM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #172

tptacek wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that abusing people's computers to disable their businesses or gain access to confidential information should be legal because "that problem is best solved using technical means" is so hostile to my perspective that there's probably little chance of us learning anything from each other by debating it.

For the record, that was not my thrust. (Can't speak for dlitz.) I was just surprised at your suggestion that better laws would reduce your workload at Matasano.

You spoke for me well enough. If you reduce the number of computer criminals by 90%, it won't perceptibly change the amount of work that anyone has to put into writing secure programs, because the 10% of remaining criminals will still exploit everyone's vulnerabilities. If those laws impose friction on the rest of us (e.g. laws mandating wiretapping and/or filtering capability), then we all suffer huge aggregate costs for basically no gain.