Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Tom Arseneault <arsen () certaintysolutions com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
There's a similar parrell with "Hate Crimes". A white man punches a black man, is it a hate crime or just two men having a fight? The law makes sense only under certain circumstances (did the white man hit the black man just becuase he's black?). As far as I know this is still being hashed out in the courts but I think it handled on a case by case basis now. I envision something similar happening for this law, some people would go away for a inappropriotaly long time while ACLU lawyers argue their case and over time cooler head will prevail and things will start to be handled in a saner manner (3 strikes cases non-withstanding). Is this "shaking out" period a good or a bad thing? I would argue that it should be un-nessary and you would thing they (we/us/them) would learn from history and craft their laws better in the first place. What can we, as citizens do about current pending legislation? First I would argue not to do anything blatantly illegel (under current law or best practice) and usher in an age of Cyber-McCarthy'ism. Definately write your congress-person, senator, ACLU, and any one who would listen and have a stake in the outcome. State your arguments clearly, reasonably and at a simple enough level that anyone can follow them, even people who arn't Cyber-citizens. Civil disobedience should be a last resort when other, better, avenues have been exausted -and- we are sure of our correctness. We were able to defeat (mostly) the Telecomunications act last decade because we presented logical, sound and resonable arguments about why it was a bad thing to enough people that counted. Sending notes around the internet informing people that there is a problem is a good thing but arguing the case here does nothing since we all mostly agree, preaching to the choir, send your notes out to the law makers. Also remember that like it or not, things have changed in the U.S. since Sept.11. Many things we may not like, but can live with. Is this proposed law something that we can live with for the public good? Or is it, as most people are saying, a knee jerk reaction to fear and hysteria that needs to be fought, again for the pubiic good? My $.02 worth. Tom Arseneault On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Ian Stoba wrote:
I would even go one step further. I think that what John Thornton (the original poster) is advocating is not a form of civil disobedience at all, but an act of cowardly appeasement. As Felix points out below, a silent protest is unlikely to change anything. A more pure form of civil disobedience would be something like this: o Send a single SYN-RST packet to www.whitehouse.gov o Present yourself for arrest at the Hoover Building o Demand that the government prove in court that you are the criminal equivalent of a hijacker/mass murderer/suicide bomber/[insert preferred terrorist euphemism here] and deserve to be put away for the rest of your life. Be sure to contrast your punishment with the average sentences for murderers, rapists, and bank robbers. Note that I am not volunteering to do this, which perhaps makes me a coward as well. For those of us who disagree with the legislation but don't relish a role as Rosa Parks or some kind of cyber-Gandhi, the usual exhortations to political action apply. Contact your elected officials, business leaders, and anyone else you can buttonhole to let them know that exposing computer security professionals to criminal liability actually reduces our security rather than improving it. --Ian On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 10:38 AM, Felix von Leitner wrote:And what will that achieve? The opposite of what you actually want: the computer crime statistics will show a marked reduction of "cyber criminality" and the government will not only believe they did the right thing, they will also use this as precedent for other "terrorist" problems. Driving too fast, for example, because a very fast car causes more damage on impact than a slow one, so it is obviously a terrorist weapon. So we better enact the death penalty on it.
Current thread:
- Re: Civil Disobedience, (continued)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Blue Boar (Oct 15)
- RE: Civil Disobedience Ken Pfeil (Oct 15)
- RE: Civil Disobedience George Milliken (Oct 15)
- RE: Civil Disobedience Ken Pfeil (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ethan Zimmer (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Jon O . (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Catherine Allen (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Craig Van Tassle (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Chris Ess (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Felix von Leitner (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ian Stoba (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Tom Arseneault (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ian Stoba (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Russell Handorf (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Felix von Leitner (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Sebastian Ip (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Chip Mefford (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience CJ Oster (Oct 15)
- RE: Civil Disobedience Joel Rivers (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ken Ludeman (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ron DuFresne (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ken Ludeman (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ron DuFresne (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Ken Ludeman (Oct 15)
- Re: Civil Disobedience Blue Boar (Oct 15)