Almost Politics

[R3Zelite]

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?

[ikalo]

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

[PM8228]

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-

[groovicus]

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.

[ttau]

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

[MrLinus]

.. 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.

[nihil]

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

[groovicus]

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.

[rcgreen]

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.

[fourdc]

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"