Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Recent Attacks
From: Ryan Russell <ryan () securityfocus com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:13:44 -0800 (PST)
"Fair"?? Actually, it is entirely reasonable to sue for damages based on lost business. Especially if you can demonstrate a track record in a business area. Let's say I run a site that consistently generates revenues of $1m/day, at the average. On one day, because of something someone did, I only am able to generate revenues of $100,000. The next day, after they stop doing whatever it was they did, it's back up to $1m/day. That's an open and shut case - it's not a matter of arguing "potential" customers at all. I couldn't argue they were responsible for the entire $900,000 loss but the jury would give me more than that in punitive damages if there was enough evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty.
Hang on now, that's too easy an example. I'm not THAT lenient. What I'm saying is that if Amazon normally does 1M$/day, and on the day od the DDoS attacks, they only do 800K$... but then do 1.2M$ the next day.. were there damages beyond investigative costs? More realistically, Amazon's daily numbers are probably all over the place, and it will be really hard to pick out how many dollars they lost in two hours. Which may have come back later, which may not matter. All I'm trying to imply is that their getting slapped with 1.2B in damages is silly. As usual, one group pulls a number from their ass, and the press repeats it as fact. Not fair.
These little hacker kiddies have no idea the kind of sleeping dragons they are trying to wake up. Once they do, they will be screaming "Unfair! Unfair!" I'm sure they'll still have a lot of sympathizers, but, as I originally proposed, they made a big mistake going after the media. Look for a downturn of sympathy for hacking in the next year. A hard rain's 'a gonna fall...
They poked at particular dragons. I'm not saying it was smart at all, but it was deliberate.
And, lastly, as my sister the lawyer told me once, "The law is not about 'fair' it's about 'legal'"
That is it's own problem. Laws should be fair, I know they're often not. I'll settle for not adding some more de-facto law through bad precedent. Ryan
Current thread:
- Re: Recent Attacks, (continued)
- Re: Recent Attacks Philip J. Koenig (Feb 15)
- Re: Recent Attacks Michael Cassidy (Feb 15)
- Re: Recent Attacks Drew Smith (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks Ryan Russell (Feb 15)
- Message not available
- Re: Recent Attacks Marcus J. Ranum (Feb 15)
- Re: Recent Attacks Ryan Russell (Feb 15)
- Re: Recent Attacks Philip J. Koenig (Feb 16)
- Re: Recent Attacks Ryan Russell (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks David A. Wagner (Feb 21)
- Message not available
- Re: Recent Attacks Marcus J. Ranum (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks Ryan Russell (Feb 18)
- Re: Recent Attacks Marcus J. Ranum (Feb 15)
- Re: Recent Attacks Terry Lee Moore (Feb 15)
- Re: Recent Attacks Marcus J. Ranum (Feb 16)
- Re: Recent Attacks Bennett Todd (Feb 16)
- Re: Recent Attacks Philip J. Koenig (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks Reverend Chris Cappuccio (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks Ge' Weijers (Feb 19)
- Re: Recent Attacks Malcolm Holser (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks Brad Van Orden (Feb 17)
- Re: Recent Attacks Philip J. Koenig (Feb 17)
- Message not available
- Re: Recent Attacks David LeBlanc (Feb 17)