GAH! US Gov't = going to far!!

by Xander 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Xander

  This is just irritating:

  Pay special attention to:

  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."

  Doesn't that sound lovely? And, how about:

  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."
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  ohhhh thats a little spooky. I could see a life sentence for say- someone who hacks into a flood control gate and floods a city and kills 200 people....but that wording is a little vague....
• 

  JanH

  Oh no, more America bashing!

  Glad my hacking days are over. lol

  - Jan
• 

  joannadandy

  What is unclear about Malicious Hackers?
• 

  Satanus

  Something will be done, but this seems a bit heavy. I think this

  A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.

  shows their thinking well enough.

  SS
• 

  safe4kids

  The scary thing about this is the infringement on civil rights. The wording is rather vague...who defines "limited" and "malicious"? If this is in the wording somewhere, I missed it, but then I did rather skim the article. I'm all for cracking down on criminals, but once we give up some of our personal freedoms, it's difficult, if not impossible, to regain them.

  Dana
• 

  Satanus

  It's mainly concerbed w protecting govt computers. Not so much w corporate or personal computers, though that could be tightened up as well.

  SS
• 

  Xander

  It's not as bad as it COULD be, but it opens too many doors.

  "Until we secure our cyber infrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet connection is all one needs to disable the economy and endanger lives,"

  Which is a ridiculous statement to begin with (yeah, it's theoretically possible - but don't you think if it were practical, it would have been done by now?) Are we all forgetting that the terrorist agenda is to suppress their own people? They are so uneducated, they need to send people to THIS country to learn to fly planes?

  What on earth are the odds a successful 'cyber attack' could be originated from them? (Just FYI, while we DO have 'flying schools' there are no 'cyber attack' schools here).

  "Disable the economy"! LOL! Of course, the level of education in our House is apparently not much higher.

  who defines "limited" and "malicious"?

  That's *exactly* the problem. I would put good money the RIAA was sponsoring a member on the committee. Anyone want to bet 'file sharing' becomes a 'terrorist' activity since it could 'disable (part of) the economy'?

  Life sentances for owning MP3s, anyone? Yeah, I know, unlikely, I just don't like the taste this law leaves in my mouth. Much like the 'Patriot Act' earlier or the 'Office of Homeland Security' (still can't believe they called it that) - the government is taking too much liberty with the post-9/11 public paranoia.

  (Incidently: not 'America Bashing' - like the country just fine. Current administration is a little....*yuck*, but...)

  Edited by - Xander on 16 July 2002 15:0:22
• 

  COMF

  Hey, I'm down with that, man. I have fantasized more than once about being the personal executioner of the author of a virus. I see the job done with a lead pipe. Or, perhaps, disemboweling him with a rock.
• 

  SYN

  I'm glad I never really got into that stuff...there was the opportunity, but I chose to focus on the still-legal profession of programming instead! It is pretty bad when really vague laws get approved, tho, no matter what their subject matter is. We've got a few vague ones in SA too that you wouldn't believe!