Hacking bill update

Folks, the closer you look at this, the nastier it gets. I know there are other threads on this but this one is posted as an update, not to spark a debate. Get a security experts take on the ramifications of this bill. I'll post the threads for the debate after I post the link to the story I just read. Jeez...this legislation could literally turn the internet inside out. Imagine a world where script kiddies have a legal umbrella to seek refuge under and your firewall could be in violation of the DMCA. How about a government sponsered DDoS that can get you arrested if you try to block it.

SCARY

View the story: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54153,00.html

View the other threads on this matter:

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=232855

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=232818

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=232759

Quote:

---

Hackers said that very few of their skilled colleagues would consider taking pirate-persecuting jobs. "I don't think Hollywood has a hell of a lot of support within the hacking community, so finding real talent might be a bit tough,"

---

lets hope so

Quote:

---

Hackers said that very few of their skilled colleagues would consider taking pirate-persecuting jobs.

"I don't think Hollywood has a hell of a lot of support within the hacking community, so finding real talent might be a bit tough," hellNbak, a member of hacker laboratory Nomad Mobile Research Centre said. "That being said, there are always those who will, if the price is right, offer help and training."

---

honestly, i doubt it would be hard for them to find hackers given the huge ammounts of money that go through any big-time movie/music/whatever entertainment companys. i dont see many hackers sticking to their principals in the face of a one-time $50,000 contract, and that would be pennies compaired to what they COULD offer.

Very true, the ethics of a real hacker will most likely prevail over this matter. Movies like "Hackers" really upset most hackers because right after this movie hackers were seen by the community as someone who does illegeal things like mess up computers and since then hackers have struggled against this stereotype.

I hope this bill does not get passed. As a person who is against piracy, I must say this little "war" the industry is taking is going way out of hand. The bottom line is, we are in the beginnings of a police state, and it seems the rights we once cherished and loved is now becoming a relic. Let us look at a few things:

Your mailman snoops on you, and if you happen to worship Allah, and reports to gv't you are a possible terrorist.

You talk against the g'vt on why you do not like an idea, and you are viewed as a potential terrorist.

A 13 year old script kiddie defaces a web page and gets life in prison for cyber terrorism activities.

However, there is a terrible double standard here... we get LIFE in prison for infilterating another network without authorization, but the industry and the g'vt can delete files, have admin access to all your (potentially) sensitive data and have free access to them? Yes, they are not allowed to delete any files, but once they have access to delete those files, you still have read access to other data such as credit card numbers, trade secrets, poetry, your pr0n collection, payroll data, passwords, and you guessed it, your ideas.

Now I had a really scary thought that will tie this altogether. Imagine the Homeland Security bill and this bill getting passed. Now since the industry is a service, and upon their romaings on your HDD, if they read anything suspicious, can the FBI come breaking down your door in case they found something "terrorist-like?" That scares the **** outta me.

This whole thing is scaring the **** out of me :(

Quote:

---

Amendment IV
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.

---

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

The constitution is clear. It's the politicians who are confused.
:cool:

Confused or not, their affect is still the same. The FBI/NSA etc. have a panel of judges on stand-by, their sole purpose is to get around this amendment by issuing blanket type search warrants on demand. I’m not saying this is not necessary at this time, only that if the scenario alittlebitnumb portrayed did go down, chances are the FBI would be knocking down your door. I really think we need an independant panel watching this panel.

8ball, i agree with you 110% and also see hellnbak's statement as a request for an offer.

Quote:

---

Security experts also wondered how Hollywood would come up with a battalion of skilled hack attackers. Would the pirate-battling forces be unassuming programmers, now ordered to come up with malicious programs to foil file traders? Or would Hollywood soon be hiring real hackers?

---

Who says you even need hackers. Why not just get an army of script kidz pay them minimum wage and have them ddos and scan for open NetBIOS ports all day. My big worry is that they’ll start hacking people out side the U.S witch is totally illegal but would most likely happen due to the fact that neo trace or visual trace route aren’t always 100% accurate. This is the kind of vigilante justice that I think we can live with out in a civilized society.

Interesting, very interesting. The bottom line is; you give a bureaucrat or minor functionary or wannabe-cop of some kind 'power', and that power will be used to it's max. (been thru an airport recently?) Most alpha-type enforcers do not care how the eventual 'case' turns out, because their personal cost is zip (time and attorneys are included in the job) while citizen has the choice of mortgaging their future to hire some lawyer who may or may not be able to get the truth to the minds of the jury or judge... well, you get the point. Personally, i would be apprehensive as all heII if the Whitehouse was occupied by it's recently vacated crew and their neu-world-dictionaries ("The Constitution is a living document, that should be modernized whenever the social condition requires" ...Second Ammendment was primary in that discussion...). Whereas, i'm sure, other folks of equally good intentions would be totally comfortable with someone like William. The thing you have to remember when giving people power is whether you trust them implicitly with that power, and whether they will be succeeded by someone you do not trust. Usually, your gut feeling will be correct if you listen to it carefully. "Reasonable People Can Disagree"

You know the largest problem with the bill is that it gives the companies the right to do this. I don't mind the government enforcing laws, but to hand that power over to a corperate entity? Remember the consitution only protects you from the government, the 4th amendment won't protect you from citizens, so by giving policing authority to citizens or corperate entity the 4th amendment does not apply at least in theory.

That is very frightening.