Re: NYT article on the (ever-more-sophitsticated) bot wars

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology" <synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com 
>
Date: December 10, 2008 9:49:34 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: NYT article on the (ever-more-sophitsticated)  
bot wars

With respect, this appears to be the kind of thinking that got us into  
the mess.
How does making someone responsible for the criminal activities of a  
relatively untouchable other person make any sense at all either from  
a legal or moral or technical perspective?

To use the very flawed swimming pool analogy, this is akin to making  
Tony responsible for someone from Venezuela air-dropping toxic  
chemicals into his pool while illegally overflying his country.  I  
would expect that if Tony thinks this is a good legislation to pass,  
that he would be first in favour of automated roads, speed controls on  
cars outside of automated roads, mandatory weight limits on people and  
banning the production of tobacco on any local land.

Applying 'lets fix it here' just doesn't work on a global problem.   
Please, let's not waste any energy thinking that we can magically pass  
a law and pretend that the internet isn't global.
To be more specific, if we could mandate that the owner of a computer  
in Canada is responsible for the damages done by someone in Russia to  
computers in Ghana we would have solved all the worlds' problems long  
ago.  To think that passing a law in any one country will work without  
the rest is simply not thinking through the problem enough.

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:38 AM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
Date: December 9, 2008 12:07:25 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   NYT article on the (ever-more-sophitsticated)  
bot wars

There is an simple legal change that could be made that would lead to  
an improved cybersecurity situation:

1.  Owners of networked computers would be held legally responsible  
for all activities performed by their computers, including those  
caused by viruses and BOTs. They would be responsible if their  
computers sent information that caused harm. They would also be  
responsible if their computers took local action on the basis of bogus  
information that they received. They would be responsible, period.

2.  Computer software and hardware vendors would not be able to  
disclaim liability for security bugs. They would share responsibility  
with their customers for the effects of these bugs.

Eventually, laws like these are going be passed, just as laws require  
swimming pools to be secured with locked gates and fences.  It may be  
a bit early for such draconian simplicity, but it would be a good idea  
for the industry to think about what they would do were such laws to  
pass.

Tony Lauck
https://www.aglauck.com




Anthony G. Lauck
PO Box 59
Warren, VT 05674
Southface 5 (for UPS and FedEX)
81 Park Ave
Warren, VT 05674
(802) 583-4405 (802) 329-2006 (FAX)





--




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com