Hello, > > > Yes, and I've glanced over the text of the bills too. Don't like very > much about them. I think they're drafted specifically to: > > - allow law enforcement and law makers to be seen as quickly > responding to a serious threat > - opportunistically increase the surveillance powers afforded law > enforcement entities > > While the terrorist threat is serious, a hasty response which intrudes > upon the very freedoms the terrorists are attacking is NOT the answer. > > > While I agree website defacement should be punished harsh > > Why? Web site defacement is a crim akin in severity to spray-painting > graffiti on a store front, and should be treated as such. It's > perpetrators are usually the same group of people too; that is, bored > teenagers. The only difference is that one form of vandalism is high > tech and the other is low tech. It's certainly an annoyance to the > people running the site, but hardly more than that. And, in the vast > majority of cases, it's a very PREVENTABLE one. >
Yes and no. If a attacker breaks into a hoster and mass defaces every client site each buisness is effetced by this. While I agree the hoster should have had better security the other buisnesses will suffer because of it. Not to mention some defacers do steal credit card information. While I agree some sort of punishment is needed(maybe a few months max in jail) Id on't think a lifetime in jail is the answer. > > > I don't agree life in jail is the solution. Just another thing being > > sneaked into these bills. > > The current anti-terrorism bill proposed by Ashcroft goes way > overboard, amounting to (IMO) little more than a punishment for being > both mischevious (which SHOULD be discouraged, at certain levels) and > intelligent (which SHOULD NOT be discouraged, ever). It also > criminalizes probably a large percentage of the people on this list, > who've ever been curious about what's going on with someone else's > system. RETROACTIVELY. > > I've said it before -- this bill is yet another example of the war on > geeks. People who understand how our technology works are to be > feared and punished, and that seems to be the sentiment prevailing > amongst our law makers today. It's a bit unnerving. >i I wouldn't say a war on geeks as much as war on all of us. > PLEASE TAKE NOTE: I AM NOT IN ANY WAY advocating or condoning breaking > into systems to which you have no authorized access. Vandalism is > still vandalism and should be punished accordingly. What I AM saying > is that the punishment should fit the crime, and that the current > trend is to punish crimes involving technology FAR more severely than > their low-tech analogs. The idea that someone portscanning my web > server could be considered terrorism is absolutely preposterous, and > frankly scares me. I would hardly be surprised if the techies were > the victims of the next Salem. I think it's already starting... > > Really portscanning is included also? I guess I should stop my cia.gov nmap then :) (j/k) -- > --------------------------------------------------- > Derek Martin | Unix/Linux geek > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D > Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu > > > ********************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the > *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter: > unsubscribe gnhlug > ********************************************************** > ********************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter: unsubscribe gnhlug **********************************************************
