3 ms·
The CFAA is too blunt of an instrument. At the very least it should have options for lesser charges. But for some reason every politician's reaction to cyber e
by s_q_b 10y ago
The CFAA is too blunt of an instrument. At the very least it should have options for lesser charges.
But for some reason every politician's reaction to cyber events is to make the CFAA more draconian. President Obama is actually in favor of adding more provisions by amendment this year.
I'm not sure of the correct way to handle cybercrime laws, but I know the CFAA isn't it.
- micaksica 10y ago> But for some reason every politician's reaction to cyber events is to make the CFAA more draconian. I forget who said this, but it's because to a lot of this generation of politicians, a lot of "hacking" and "cybercrime" is a modern-day witchcraft. Aside from a few allies in Congress, technological aptitude (and those that actually understand cybersecurity) will likely lag until a lot of these older career politicians are replaced by "digital natives". It's not just politicians, either. Some execs at non-tech companies respond to penetration tests in the same way. "How did you do that?" "Why is this possible?" It's just completely outside of their realm of knowledge, and they trust their systems to be as failsafe as most mechanical ones.
- watwatwatwat 10y agoAnd this is our fault as programmers. We build crappy systems.
- xj9 10y agoNo, its their fault as executives. Secure systems are expensive and they take time to build properly, which is fully at odds with, "I need this done yesterday". Unfortunately (for them), since they cut the checks, the also get what they pay for.