Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pei on October 20, 2004, 09:44:43 PM
-
This came from an interesting question (one of many) asked of Neal Stephenson (author of Snow Crash, The Cryptonomicon et al) on Slashdot:
Does the 2nd Ammendment to the US constitution protect a citizens rights to keep adn access programs for hacking etc.
In an age where information is everything an attack on information realted to you could have a direct and detrimental on you (whether this was by an individual, organization or government). For example what if I hacked into your bank and put your account balance to 0? Or what changed your record in the various security databases so you were now a wanted terrorist?
Are the tools and means of computer attack a weapon, and if so are they protected under the 2nd ammendment?
-
They are weapons, but are they 'arms'.
arm2 Audio pronunciation of "arms" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
1. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
2. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
1. Heraldry. Bearings.
2. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization
Don't think they fit under the current definitions.
-
Originally posted by Pei
For example what if I hacked into your bank and put your account balance to 0?
There was a point in time just recently when I really coulda used something like that.
-
Originally posted by Pei
For example what if I hacked into your bank and put your account balance to 0? Or what changed your record in the various security databases so you were now a wanted terrorist?
Are the tools and means of computer attack a weapon, and if so are they protected under the 2nd ammendment?
if you did that, you would go to jail, oh, your from oz-land , it may be legal to hack down there.
the 2nd ammendent says you can have a gun*, it does not give the right to use it, that is covered by other laws.
* gun phobic liberals may differ.
-
nm...
-
On the otherhand nukes do fit the definition - where can I buy one?
Its amazing that those who defend brandishing arms recoil at the thought of people brandishing ideas...
No it isn't. Arms have a history of stifeling ideas.
-
Originally posted by Nash
There was a point in time just recently when I really coulda used something like that.
Govt type wage garnishment? Ex wife/future ex wife?
Sorry just curious why someone would want their account wiped out.
-
Heh....
-
not a weapon or an arm.
a tool. a destructive device. but it can't directly kill or injure a person, only cause inconvenience or property damage. not much help at all for defense.
so if I was the guy writing definitions there is no way you could convince me that it is protected under the 2nd amendment.
I'd think that if you were looking to have it protected you'd have more luck under the ST amendment.
it's a language. code is just another type of word. so it could be argued that - if arranging code in certain way (so that it acts as a virus when executed) is illegal, then it would be a violation of your freedom of speech. it could be argued that while it isn't a spoken language it is communication and would be illegal to restrict.
I don't know if it would work or not but I'd think that argument would get a guy farther than protecting virus' as "arms"
-
Rights protected by the constitution end when they restrict the rights of others. Possesing those codes should be within a persons rights, using them should be a criminal offense.
-
Originally posted by Pei
For example what if I hacked into your bank and put your account balance to 0?
Wives have been doing this for years.
The check hack. :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
On the otherhand nukes do fit the definition - where can I buy one?
Its amazing that those who defend brandishing arms recoil at the thought of people brandishing ideas...
No it isn't. Arms have a history of stifeling ideas.
Arms have only had a history of stifeling ideas when the idea creator is unarmed. One of the first tasks of a dictator or tyrranical governemnt is to disarm it's citizens.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Rights protected by the constitution end when they restrict the rights of others. Possesing those codes should be within a persons rights, using them should be a criminal offense.
thats like saying pssessing child pornography should be withing a persons rights, wacking off to it should be a criminal offense. the only reason to have it is to use it.
-
There's no scenario I can think of where one of these scripts could be used to defend your life or property.
-
Could it be possible that these scripts are protected under freedom of speech rights? It's just source code. Just like the instructions to make bombs or weapons are covered under freedom of speech rules, could source code that accomplishes a destructive act be also similarly covered? (BTW, there is a legitimate use for these scripts. Helping an administrator improve security on his own systems.) Also, would source code that can be destructive in nature, but have very legitimate uses (IE Eraser (http://sourceforge.net/projects/eraser/) ) be deemed "illegal"...?
Just some thoughts...
Terror
-
Last I heard it's still illegal in Texas to carry a pair of wire cutters in your pocket.
Hacking scripts are not protected by the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Rights protected by the constitution end when they restrict the rights of others. Possesing those codes should be within a persons rights, using them should be a criminal offense.
The 2nd amendment says "keep and bear arms". Which to means you can keep and USE firearms. Certain uses/mis-uses should be criminal, but general safe usage of a firearm should not be restricted.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Terror
Could it be possible that these scripts are protected under freedom of speech rights? It's just source code. Just like the instructions to make bombs or weapons are covered under freedom of speech rules, could source code that accomplishes a destructive act be also similarly covered? (BTW, there is a legitimate use for these scripts. Helping an administrator improve security on his own systems.) Also, would source code that can be destructive in nature, but have very legitimate uses (IE Eraser (http://sourceforge.net/projects/eraser/) ) be deemed "illegal"...?
Just some thoughts...
Terror
and kiddy porn is just colored dots:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by vorticon
and kiddy porn is just colored dots:rolleyes:
Umm.. I'm not for sure how kiddy porn became a part of this...
Comparing kiddie porn and these "hacking" scripts is not a good comparison. A child was exploited to make kiddie porn, and when people buy/use kiddie porn, it tempts the makers of kiddie porn to exploit more children. That is why kiddie porn is illegal. To try to protect children from being exploited in this way.
The creation of hacking scripts does not exploit or infringe on anyones rights. There are even legitimate uses for "hacking" scripts. So the malicious use of the scripts should be illegal, not the scripts themselves. Just because I possess "hacking" scripts, does not mean I am using them to gain access to computer systems that I do not have authorization to access.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Pei
This came from an interesting question (one of many) asked of Neal Stephenson (author of Snow Crash, The Cryptonomicon et al) on Slashdot:
Does the 2nd Ammendment to the US constitution protect a citizens rights to keep adn access programs for hacking etc.
In an age where information is everything an attack on information realted to you could have a direct and detrimental on you (whether this was by an individual, organization or government). For example what if I hacked into your bank and put your account balance to 0? Or what changed your record in the various security databases so you were now a wanted terrorist?
Are the tools and means of computer attack a weapon, and if so are they protected under the 2nd ammendment?
I dont think its the script or the hardware that is the danger. It's the hacker that writes them. Buying a script, or a virus, as a weapon to strike back at someone who attacks you with one, or just to have as a threat (deterrant) wouldnt work because nearly as fast as new ones come out people are updating AV software to "inocculate" their systems against them. Hackers dont exactly leave themselves vulnerable either. No, what you would do is hire your own hacker. Someone who specializes in securing a system against attack, and can launch attacks of their own against those who attack you. As long as the attack was directed against an individual, and you could prove they attacked you first, it might even hold up. I work in private security. I received basic training in computer security when I was working towards my Linux Sysadmin certification. I have friends who do it for a living. The two are rapidly approaching each other in a day and age where more and more buildings are "wired", especially with the advent of wi-fi. I can see the day coming when private security companies and even contract security will have computer security added to their list of jobs. Even private homes are being built that are hardwired with fiber optics and all the goodies to make "smart homes" with high speed internet/cable TV/internet phones pre-wired for every room, and remote computer control of every appliance, every light, every door lock. I dont see it as so "out there" that instead of hiring just a bodyguard, people will hire personal security that combines the physical with cyberspace protection.
So I guess it could be considered a weapon. Hackers attack the innocent, and at random. Your security targets the hacker IF and only if, he targets you. Works for me.
-
Originally posted by Pei
For example what if I hacked into your bank and put your account balance to 0?
most banks use a 128 bit code for bank accounts on the internet.....
it would take a SUPER-COMPUTER about a year 24hrs a day of computing to decipher 1 account.....
good luck in your fantasy....
most Crackers are foolish children with access to a computer, A Hacker with some sense would take the back door, gettin someone to tell em the account password or gettin his hands on your bank card and all he would need is a mag. card reader.
or else good luck in your almost infinite mathematical improbability.
-
Most hacking is not done brute force, but by regular run of the mill fraud and scams. Most passwords are actually given out and not hacked or ciphered. The old thing about forging a bank address and sending a web page email for someone to update their account.
In the past week I have two forged emails that appear they're from my ISP - I've gota remember to send them in. I have my email set to text only so I dont see all the junk , and one is like 50kb long. I can only imagine the scripts in that one.
-
Originally posted by SLO
most banks use a 128 bit code for bank accounts on the internet.....
it would take a SUPER-COMPUTER about a year 24hrs a day of computing to decipher 1 account.....
good luck in your fantasy....
most Crackers are foolish children with access to a computer, A Hacker with some sense would take the back door, gettin someone to tell em the account password or gettin his hands on your bank card and all he would need is a mag. card reader.
or else good luck in your almost infinite mathematical improbability.
When you say encrypted what is enrypted? Your password? Your internet banking session? Most of the data that is your account is not. It sits on some main frame somewhere. And that mainframe is on a network. And somewhere on that network is way in. Most of this stuff is not directly protected; they rely on the fact that it is deep in a network under obscure protocols in unusual formats. Your online account is just one view onto the data: there will be many others, and somewhere there will be a hole. If I'm clever and lucky (or know the right people) I might get in.
Besides, what if I have broken into your computer and I can get your login data? How secure do you think you are right now reading this?
-
That's funny Pei, I ran across the same thing on Slashdot.
I'm trying to figure out if Enoch Root is a robot. :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
That's funny Pei, I ran across the same thing on Slashdot.
I'm trying to figure out if Enoch Root is a robot. :)
Now that is entirely different kettle of fish. Maybe he is an evil spirit who just has a fetish for the Waterhouse family?
-
I thought maybe he was Enoch from the Bible. This is discussed at the end of System of the World. Enoch lived for hundreds of years and was then "translated" into an angel or something.
But I don't think Stephenson would put evil spirits or anything supernatural in his books, except in the sense of Clarke's Law.
I know there is going to be at least one more book in this sequence which takes place some generations after Cryptonomicon.
So I think this means Root is:
A robot from the future
OR
A person from the future who has obtained immortality by technological means (e.g. nanotechnology)
OR
A person from the future who time-travels sufficiently to appear immortal.
Because of the focus in these books on information technology, I like the robot explanation.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I thought maybe he was Enoch from the Bible. This is discussed at the end of System of the World. Enoch lived for hundreds of years and was then "translated" into an angel or something.
But I don't think Stephenson would put evil spirits or anything supernatural in his books, except in the sense of Clarke's Law.
I know there is going to be at least one more book in this sequence which takes place some generations after Cryptonomicon.
So I think this means Root is:
A robot from the future
OR
A person from the future who has obtained immortality by technological means (e.g. nanotechnology)
OR
A person from the future who time-travels sufficiently to appear immortal.
Because of the focus in these books on information technology, I like the robot explanation.
I think that given Stephenson's proclivities and the nature of all of his books (except Zodiac) that there is something to do with IT in there. Maybe Enoch is a program, self replicating: we aren't seeing one Enoch Root but different instances of the program Enoch Root. That would link into some of the ideas in Snow Crash.
A different (but not incompatible) idea is that Enoch is somehow the System Administrator of the World:
as a friend of mine pointed Root = root user (for the Unix/Linux/BSD inclined).
-
I think we killed the thread. :)
I've heard the Root = admin thing. I think Larry even considers that in Cryptonomicon when he is trying to figure out who the hell is emailing him.