Almost Politics
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Almost Politics

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5

    Almost Politics

    As an antihacker, I actually agree with the use of the Patriot act to find and punish hackers on a legal basis. However, since that is not the intention of the Patriot act, who agrees that there should actually be better security dictated by LAW to find and take out the hackers? similar to the Patriot act, it could actually be legal to take them down... Would that be violation of privacy? anybody agree?
    R3z

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    124
    There is no LAW that can be usefull. The only usefull thing is hole in the LAW. And it is usefull to lawyers the most.

    How do you define Antihacker?
    to me it is hacker that hounts other hackers
    Ikalo
    ------
    Make your knowledge your deadliest weapon.

  3. #3
    As an antihacker, I actually agree with the use of the Patriot act to find and punish hackers on a legal basis. However, since that is not the intention of the Patriot act, who agrees that there should actually be better security dictated by LAW to find and take out the hackers? similar to the Patriot act, it could actually be legal to take them down... Would that be violation of privacy? anybody agree?
    Right, anti-hacker. The Patriot act was not created to find hackers, or even to fight terrorists as the current administration claimed. It was created to expand the powers of the executive branch and the FBI, allowing for almost a complete bypass of the judicial branch until a charge is pressed. This means searches, records, etc, without a good reason, or court order. As a future citizen who would like rights, I think it is the worst thing possible. Huge violation of privacy, but I have a feeling you voted for Big Brother, or you can not vote. The creation of another Patriot act like law just expands the powers of the SS, er secret service. Besides, what the hell is an anti-hacker? Is it like anti-pasta?

    -Cheers-

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,019
    Since it was brought up...just for the sake of a little trivia...can anybody tell me what amendment says we have the right to privacy?

    EDIT: I should say Amendment to the US constitution.

  5. #5
    The 4th amendment, actually no amendment gaurantees the right to privacy, it's is only assumed, but the 4th comes close.

  6. #6
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    .. who agrees that there should actually be better security dictated by LAW to find and take out the hackers?
    Sounds more like it would be an issue of "life, liberty and freedom" rather than privacy. Also, how would you know that who you went after was in fact the perpetrator and not just another victim? Law that is vindictive tends not to work well and often leads to lynching and such (case in point: Salem Witch Trials).

    The 4th Amendment reads as such (from the House Government Website)

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    This isn't a privacy law. Rather this is a law to protect against lynching and false arrest. Might want to visit this Site for more information on "privacy" in America.

    Oh.. and this thread has been moved to Cosmos since this has nothing to do with Computer Forensics.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  7. #7
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    I think that the biggest problem (and it is Global, not just the US) is that the legislators or lawmakers do not actually know very much about information technology and the internet?

    I feel that this makes for a very dangerous situation?

    I am sure that we have all noticed various enactments and rulings recently that are plainly unenforcable or give conflicting messages?

    Also, unless legislation is international, it tends to be pretty pointless? after all, terrorism is international, as is cybercrime?

    It seems that the lawmakers still have to get rid of their "fortress America" mentality.we are all in this together are we not?

    Just my 0.02

    Cheers

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,019
    Thank you Mittens, you helped make my point. I apoloize for asking a 'trick' question.

    This issue of a right to privacy didn't come into being until the early 1970's, and as ttau stated, it is only inferred by the fourth amendment. As an inferred right, that means it is subject to the whim and folly of whoever happens to be sitting on the bench in the supreme court. As such, the interpretations are going to change as public attitudes change.

    Most people here may remember Roe V Wade from 1972. Most people think the controversy stems from the abortion issue. Although that is partly true, it also represents the first challenge to the issue of a right to privacy. The political and moral climate of the time was such that it stated what a person does with their body is a private matter...

    Overturning Roe v. Wade also implies that we don't have a right to privacy. Even opponents of abortion are in a sense forced to back the decision because it is based on the right to privacy.

    The right to privacy is being stretched now because of the threat of terrorism...political and moral perceptions have changed.

    EDIT: Excellent link MsMittens.

  9. #9
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

    The poor stepchild of the constitution, and the most explosive idea of all, that
    your rights do not come from the gov't at all, but you have delegated
    certain powers to them and retain the rest.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  10. #10
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Your right to privacy might also be extrapolated from being free from unlawful search and siezure.

    If they don't have a warrant, they shouldn't be searching.

    As the Grateful Dead said in "Truckin"
    "....if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in"
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •