Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4991-1026870530-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21719 invoked by uid 510); 17 Jul 2002 01:53:19 -0000 Received: from n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.73) by all.net with SMTP; 17 Jul 2002 01:53:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4991-1026870530-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Jul 2002 01:48:51 -0000 X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 17 Jul 2002 01:48:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 68507 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2002 01:48:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2002 01:48:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web14510.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.169) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2002 01:48:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20020717014850.63100.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.100.117.184] by web14510.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:48:50 PDT To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <200207160604.g6G64hK29375@red.all.net> From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com> X-Yahoo-Profile: fastflyer28 Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [iwar] House OKs life sentences for hackers (fwd) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,CLICK_BELOW,SUPERLONG_LINE version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: A note from DC- Do not fret quite yet, as the Senate tends to look at such legislation as a "Knee-jerk" reaction to what is still a significant problem. There is no question that we new need tougher laws to deal with not just kiddie hackers, but organized group that are attempting through DDOS, system exploitation and intrustion to do real damage to their targets. The bills before the Senate have yet to be debated and offer a variety of remidies for the Courts in sentencing people who are convicted of computer crimes/hacking. US Code requires that the punishment reflects the magnitude of any crime. At present, only violent criminals-killers, terrorists who do not get a death sentance, rapists and spys- generally with get a life sentance. Convicted fellons that meet the "3 time loser" statute and criminals whose crimes were committed in unusually ruthless manner are the only others who generally get life in prision. Finally, police are required to have a court order for wire taps, or for placement of computer bugs. That is a matter of Constutional law. The House passing one bill that , if made law, would likely be overturned in the courts by the first convicted individual is not the way to go.. Hacking, while serious, does not meet life sentance guidelines in the courts. While the intentions of the House to seriously punish hackers is proper, the Senate bills-at present-have more realistic approaches to the problem. The Senate bills all differ from what the House just passed. The sky has yet to fall. See what the Senate does now. FYI- email and net communications-if used to threaten ,or stalk in any way are considered admissible in court. But, the police dont have the right to just bug your home and PC because you might do something illegal in the future. Cops need to have "probable cause" that you have committed a crime before you get court order to bug. Regardless , this matter is unlikely to be resolved by the present Congress with elections just around the corner in November and several budget items still unresolved. The next Congress will get back to Business in Jan 03. They must work on passing a law which reflects an even handed approach to dealing with people who do ill to this countries critical cyber infrastructure. No question about that. International cyber criminals will still be out of reach, regardless of what is passed. Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> wrote: House OKs life sentences for hackers By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com July 15, 2002, 6:00 PM PT http://news.com.com/2100-1001-944057.html WASHINGTON--The House of Representatives on Monday overwhelmingly approved= a bill that would allow for life prison sentences for malicious computer= hackers. By a 385-3 vote, the House approved a computer crime bill that also expands= police ability to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping without= first obtaining a court order. The Bush administration had asked Congress to approve the Cyber Security= Enhancement Act (CSEA) as a way of responding to electronic intrusions,= denial of service attacks and the threat of "cyber-terrorism." The CSEA= had been written before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks last year, but the= events spurred legislators toward Monday evening's near-unanimous vote. CSEA, the most wide-ranging computer crime bill to make its way through= Congress in years, now heads to the Senate. It's not expected to encounter= any serious opposition, although there's not much time for senators to= consider the measure because they take August off and are expected to head= home for the year around Oct. 1. "Until we secure our cyber infrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet= connection is all one needs to disable the economy and endanger lives,"= sponsor Lamar Smith, R-Tex., said earlier this year. "A mouse can be just= as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb." Smith heads a subcommittee on crime, which held hearings that drew= endorsements of CSEA from a top Justice Department official and executives= from Microsoft and WorldCom. Citing privacy concerns, civil liberties= groups have objected to portions of CSEA. At the urging of the Justice Department, Smith's subcommittee voted in= February to rewrite CSEA. It now promises life terms for computer= intrusions that "recklessly" put others' lives at risk. A committee report accompanying the legislation predicts: "A terrorist or= criminal cyber attack could further harm our economy and critical= infrastructure. It is imperative that the penalties and law enforcement= capabilities are adequate to prevent and deter such attacks." By rewriting wiretap laws, CSEA would allow limited surveillance without a= court order when there is an "ongoing attack" on an Internet-connected= computer or "an immediate threat to a national security interest." That= kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's= telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information--not the= contents of online communications or telephone calls. Under federal law, such taps can take place when there's a threat of= "serious bodily injury to any person" or activity involving organized= crime. Another section of CSEA would permit Internet providers to disclose the= contents of e-mail messages and other electronic records to police in= cases involving serious crimes. Currently it's illegal for an Internet provider to "knowingly divulge" what= users do except in some specific circumstances, such as when it's= troubleshooting glitches, receiving a court order or tipping off police= that a crime is in progress. CSEA expands that list to include when "an= emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any= person requires disclosure of the information without delay." Clint Smith, the president of the U.S. Internet Service Providers= Association, endorsed the concept earlier this year. Smith testified that CSEA builds on the controversial USA Patriot act,= which Congress enacted last fall. He said that this portion of CSEA "will= reduce impediments to ISP cooperation with law enforcement." The Free Congress Foundation, which opposes CSEA, criticized Monday= evening's vote. "Congress should stop chipping away at our civil liberties," said Brad= Jansen, an analyst at the conservative group. "A good place to start would= be to substantially revise (CSEA) to increase, not diminish, oversight and= accountability by the government." If the Senate also approves CSEA, the new law would also: =95 Require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revise sentencing guidelines= for computer crimes. The commission would consider whether the offense= involved a government computer, the "level of sophistication" shown and= whether the person acted maliciously. =95 Formalize the existence of the National Infrastructure Protection= Center. The center, which investigates and responds to both physical and= virtual threats and attacks on America's critical infrastructure, was= created in 1998 by the Department of Justice, but has not been authorized= by an act of Congress. The original version of CSEA set aside $57.5= million for the NIPC; the final version increases the NIPC's funding to= $125 million for the 2003 fiscal year. =95 Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that= is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to= online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine,= handbill or other publication." Most industry associations, including the Business Software Alliance, the= Association for Competitive Technology, the Information Technology= Association of America, and the Information Technology Industry Council,= have endorsed most portions of CSEA. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Click here to find your contact lenses! ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Save on REALTOR Fees http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:31 PDT