On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:04:37 EDT, Mark Shirley said: > criminals who are caught. Hopefully the ones who contribute the most > to the problem. Personally I don't see a single aspect of this law > that hurts hacking. (Note - it's a "bill" until it passes both House and Senate and gets signed by the President. *Then* it's a law)... If you mean "old-school" hacking, the new bill is neutral. If you meant "hacking" in the now-common meaning of "breaking into systems", then the new bill is pointless - if it doesn't hurt breaking into systems, why pass it? A previous poster made some very correct comments about updating laws to match new circumstances. The big question here: 1) Does this bill actually fix a "corner case" where previously, the prohibited behavior was clearly undesirable, but no law actually addressed the issue? or 2) Is this bill merely a pre-election "feel good and generate PR" move (remember, all 435 members of the house are up for re-election in a few weeks)? Can anybody point at a *specific* case where the new bill changes the balance of power? I haven't read the text yet - will it do nothing because everybody who's likely to get caught is *already* breaking the laws already existent, or should we be cheering "Hooray, now we can finally (arrest, file civil actions against, etc) that Sleazeball XYZ who created/distributes Spyware Foo"?
Attachment:
pgp00010.pgp
Description: PGP signature