garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY |  Ignorance of the Law....
Come on, you know the old adage.
Besides, since they can't police themselves, they have to have a legal apparatus to police all of us. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Like Steve Martin and the IRS...two words that will get you out of any IRS situation.
"I...forgot." |
|
str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| reply to garagerock
I'm not sure you understand the topic...
It seems that it is easy to hack onto a computer and then put the movie there for grabs, without the computer's owner even knowing that the movie is on his computer. To boot, the hacker puts the movie in directories that use characters that Windows XP can't delete. So even if the computer's owner finds out the movie is there, he won't be able to delete it easily either.
The article poses the question "Is it fair that the computer's owner be prosecuted and face $250,000 if they didn't put the movie on the computer, had no knowledge it was there and had to take special measures to delete it from the computer?" (since saying your computer was hacked doesn't seem to be a valid defense in court)
The question ain't whether you know the law or not... |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| I'm fairly certain I understand. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for 85 year old grannies who end up getting arrested for being drug mules, why would it not apply to this issue as well?
I'm not saying the penalty is fair; in fact, it is ridiculous. It is a copy of a crappy movie, whoopee! |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to str7
If he didn't do it...then he isn't liable. Some hacker would be the one making the file available.
Blaming the computer's owner...well, why not also blame the ISP, or name Microsoft as an accomplice for having the vulnerabilities in the first place? A hacker is using someone else's computer to commit a crime...the computer's owner can't be responsible for the criminal acts of others.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to garagerock
No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
Usually both issues are the same, because for sane, normal laws people are usually only ignorant that they are breaking a law because they are ignorant of the law itself. This is a different case, however.
If you knew anything about the law I could just tell you to look at the difference between factual impossibility and legal impossibility to understand the distinction that you have managed to confuse, but since you don't know the law I will try to dumb it down to an analogy:
It would be VERY EASY for a hacker-type to take a compromised computer, cause that computer to violate the law, then clean up after himself and call in an anonymous tip. Then Joe Blow ignorant AOL user has police bust down his door before he can so much as sign on and hear "you've got mail". Mr. Blow DIDN'T KNOW he was in violation of the law, even though (thanks to MPAA commercials or something) he knew about the law itself. This law is effectively forcing the unwashed computer-illiterate masses to secure their own computers and vigilantly police their computers OR FACE FEDERAL PRISON. Guess what: THEY AREN'T CAPABLE.
Would this scenario be likely? Probably not, but the POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE inherent in this law is significant enough that the whole thing should be scrapped.
Besides, screw hollywood, they havent even proven that these crappy pre-release crappy camcorder rips even harm their business, and they already have corrupt senators lining up to throw Americans into federal prison for it??? |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to oliphant5
1st of all we are talking about GUILT here not liability.
the issue here is that you will end up with a criminal defendant sitting there saying "I'm Innocent I tell you!!! INNOCENT!" up against the equivalent of caught-red-handed evidence. The defendant's argument that he was hacked will be viewed as a far-fetched attempt to escape punishment, and the jury will just decide the case based on sympathy:
if they like the defendant, he wins, if they don't like him for any reason, off to federal prison he goes.
Of course if the whole hacking defense is recognized as a valid defense, you will hear it in EVERY CASE, even the ones where the defendant truly intentionally broke the law. Then either the jury will always give the defendant the benefit of the doubt (which will make the law pointless, since EVERYONE can claim to be HaX0R3d and get off) or they will risk throwing innocent people in federal prison.
The whole situation is a stupid mess best avoided by peeing on this law (and heck Feinstein too while we are at it) then burning it and scattering the ashes into the ocean. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes  :
No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
I'm aware that you are not aware that he is aware that they aren't aware.
Glad I could help clear that up. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to Kaltes
Then seeing as it's not a civil tort and rather a criminal case...all this is moot. You will never be able to judge a law as to HOW it will be used, UNTIL it is used.
No DA is going to waste time with a case he/she won't win...especially after the defense loads the jury with mindless AOLers.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html
And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to str7
I believe I will answer this in a running dialog format, as that works out better than lengthy explanations.
Q: "Is it fair that the computer's owner be prosecuted and face $250,000 if they didn't put the movie on the computer, had no knowledge it was there and had to take special measures to delete it from the computer?"
A: "That depends on whether the owner of the computer is responsible for keeping his computer secure from hackers who attempt to hack it.
If the answer is yes, the owner is responsible, then the owner must take all necessary steps in order to prevent hackers from usurping his machine. If this means that the owner must actually learn how to make his computer secure, so be it. Failure to do so is his responsibility and thus he is liable for all penalties that will occur due to that failure.
If the answer is no, then it must be determined what entity is responsible for keeping the owner's computer secure, and punish them for not doing so. If this means that a regulatory agency needs to be created to ensure such security, so be it.
Either way, someone is responsible for preventing such occurrences. That someone needs to be determined and the burden of responsibility placed on them; the responsible party will then bear the brunt of penalties assessed for failing to keep to the law." |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| What your basiclly stating would push 3/4 of the american population back into the stone age of computing when people say the hell with this I can get a 250 k penalty just for leaving my computer on.
Then all those federal machines and goverment machines that have been used to send out these movies will also be at risk. Your hard earned tax dollars going to pay the mpaa's attorneys and put some loot in their pockets.
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.
You think one way not thinking about the consequences. If your machine is "rooted" and used for this how would you enjoy being a$$raped by a big prisoner named bubba while you scream your not guilty.
If this gets by may god have mercy on any one and every one who owns a computer. As 75% of the us will be going back to the abacus basiclly.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
Bumpin1ohm
Bumpin1ohm
Premium
join:2002-07-15
Aurora, CO
clubs:
| reply to AthlGrond
said by AthlGrond :
said by Kaltes :
No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
I'm aware that you are not aware that he is aware that they aren't aware.
Glad I could help clear that up.
no matter how slow i read that... still couldnt follow...
--
Line Stats: 1536x768 || Cisco Modem/Router || 5 Static IPs || 5 Pop3/webmail Email Accounts || Usenet Access || No Bandwidth limitations or Blocked ports |
|
str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| reply to garagerock
The difference is that in this case you can be in the know in regards of the law while not doing a single thing to be in infraction of the law, yet BE in infraction of the law.
Just look at the latest wave of virus and it's not hard to see how computers can get compromised (because of Windows flaws).
This would affect anyone that runs a server. Heck, even a big game company (Valve) got hacked by a mischievous hacker.
If the Nasa can be hacked, so can anyone.
The problem here is that someone can be unaware that an infringing movie sits on his computer. Even if that person knows the law, that person can't act lawfully since they do not know that the file is on their computer.
It got nothing to do with not knowing the law. |
|
Urzumph
join:2002-11-06
Australia
| reply to oliphant5
said by oliphant5 :
why not also blame the ISP, or name Microsoft as an accomplice for having the vulnerabilities in the first place?
Good idea, then we can hand them in and collect our bounty from them  |
|
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs:
| reply to DSL Oberst
said by DSL Oberst :
A: "That depends on whether the owner of the computer is responsible for keeping his computer secure from hackers who attempt to hack it.
According to my provider, via their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), I am responsible for said security and all things on it and how they are made accessible (or not). From the Cox HSI AUP:
said by CurrentCox HSI AUP:
9. Security You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device. Cox recommends that you take appropriate security precautions for any systems connected to the Service.
11. Viruses, Trojan Horses, Worms and Denial of Service Attacks Software or other content downloaded from the Service may contain viruses and it is your sole responsibility to take appropriate precautions to protect your computer from damage to its software, files and data. ...
I strongly suspect that language much like that is in every ISP's AUP or Terms of Service agreement.
My advice: make sure that as part of the jury selection your lawyer asks prospective jurors if they've ever had a virus or trojan on their computer. Those that reply NO for any reason, excuse with cause!
--
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Brandeis (Olmstead vs US, 1928) |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn :
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.
Very well said. I am glad to see that at least one other forum user here is shocked at how accepting most of the posters here are of saddling grandma and grandpa with the risk of federal prison simply because they aren't computer security experts.
All those same posters are sitting back armchair-quarterback/general style making legal commentary when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
The fact is that we live in a democracy and those are OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES sitting in Congress deciding this proposed law. We have the right and the responsibility to assert our interests in the form of phone calls, letters, and our vote, etc.
This ACT is nothing more than the MPAA trying to get the US TAXPAYER to foot the bill for securing the MPAA's business model! Don't let them do it! |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to BosstonesOwn
Edited for directly applicable content.
said by BosstonesOwn :
What your basiclly stating would push 3/4 of the american population back into the stone age of computing when people say the hell with this I can get a 250 k penalty just for leaving my computer on.
Basically, you are stating that the user should not be responsible for the computers they own.
Ok, no problem.
Simply point out to me who should be responsible for the security of your computer other than yourself and I will be more than happy to lay that responsibility at that person/entity's feet.
What if that person were myself?
How would you feel if I were responsible for the security of your computer?
If the user does not take responsibility, that responsibility will be given by the government to someone else - along with the authorization to do what they deem necessary to make it secure.
Anyone who thinks about it sees the implications.
The airline safety isn't up to snuff? Give the responsibility and authority to the FAA.
The industries are polluting the environment with waste and won't police it themselves? Give the responsibility and authority to the EPA.
The computer users won't take the responsibility to make their own computers secure? Give that responsibility and authority to...whom? Create a new agency?
Probably not. They'd give it to an already existing one.
Perhaps the Secret Service? Oh yeah, they investigate computer crime with draconian tactics...how would you like them to be responsible for security of your system?
Or the Department of Homeland Security?
I'll take my own responsibility, thank you.
Freedom = responsibility for your actions and property
Denying responsibility for your actions and property = the government giving someone else authority over you
Think on it.
said by BosstonesOwn :
Then all those federal machines and goverment machines that have been used to send out these movies will also be at risk. Your hard earned tax dollars going to pay the mpaa's attorneys and put some loot in their pockets.
No problem, make the federal and state governments responsible for their systems! That's called giving government "accountability".
said by BosstonesOwn :
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.
Extremely bad analogy.
A better analogy is, I'm driving my car and the bank robber dives into my back seat while I'm stopped at the stoplight. Then, instead of stopping the car and getting out, I go ahead and drive on home with the robber in my backseat, allowing him to make a getaway. Why? Hey - I'm not responsible for what goes on in my car.
said by BosstonesOwn :
You think one way not thinking about the consequences. If your machine is "rooted" and used for this how would you enjoy being a$$raped by a big prisoner named bubba while you scream your not guilty.
Solution: Make it so people can't "root" my machine. By whatever means necessary.
If you don't like my solution, I suggest coming up with your own that is viable.
And all you have to do is figure out who should be responsible.
|
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to 2kmaro
said by 2kmaro :
My advice: make sure that as part of the jury selection your lawyer asks prospective jurors if they've ever had a virus or trojan on their computer. Those that reply NO for any reason, excuse with cause!
Heh. That's a good idea.
I don't know if you meant it to be humourous, but I certainly find it to be so.
|
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :
Very well said. I am glad to see that at least one other forum user here is shocked at how accepting most of the posters here are of saddling grandma and grandpa with the risk of federal prison simply because they aren't computer security experts.
All those same posters are sitting back armchair-quarterback/general style making legal commentary when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
See my reply post to BosstonesOwn.
Very well, if the users are not to have responsibility, who should be responsible for the security of a user's machine?
That is truly the question at stake here, as that is the questions this entire bill is based on. |
|
str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| It's not because you're machine is secure that you won't necessarily get hacked, just like it's not because you're car is "secure" that it will not be broken into (or home or whatever).
As an analogy, say that getting into a car to deposit 1 pound of drugs was easy to do and something that happened every day. Add to that those cars would be put on a list easily available to everyone (who could then call to say you have drugs in your car). In such a context, would a law that says if the police finds 1 pound of drug in your car make you instantly guilty regardless of circumstances of drug dealing, facing a 250000$ penalty and years of jail be well-thought? I don't think so. |
|
