5 ms·

castle doctrine as I understand it means your home is your castle -- you have no duty to retreat from your own home, if someone has broken into your home, the o

castle doctrine as I understand it means your home is your castle -- you have no duty to retreat from your own home, if someone has broken into your home, the odds of something going wrong and you ending up dead are high enough that those states have said you can defend yourself with violence in your own home, rather than getting shot in the back or stabbed -- where are you going to retreat to anyway? You're already home. So, it seems like the logical extension into cyberspace would be that you can do anything you want to the attacker's computer while they are connected to your systems, but you can't pursue them once they've gone, the same as kinetic castle doctrine.

gm-conspiracy 8y ago
Also, if the victim's 'services' are being hacked (of which they do not host themselves), would it not be more akin to a thief breaking into a rented self-storage locker? The castle doctrine would definitely not apply in that situation.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > The castle doctrine would definitely not apply in that situation. This is flat-out wrong, at least in the states I'm familiar with. Most states' Castle Doctrine applies to home, work, vehicles, and property. If I'm out in the country on land used for hunting, the "Castle Doctrine" still applies assuming the normal criteria are met. If I'm at the site, I have a right to defense regardless of it being my primary residence or a rented facility.
  - gm-conspiracy 8y ago
    No, what I meant was you, as a human, not being physically present, it is just your private property that is "stored" at that location.
mieseratte 8y ago
> So, it seems like the logical extension into cyberspace would be that you can do anything you want to the attacker's computer while they are connected to your systems, but you can't pursue them once they've gone, the same as kinetic castle doctrine. That's more or less what I'm imagining, not after the fact find-fix-finish. If I come home from work, power on my machine, and find someone is DoS'ing my connection should I be able to route through an alternative connection and take down the offending machine? Honestly, I don't know how to feel because there is greater potential for collateral than with, say, a man in a ski mask kicking in my door. At the same time wholesale denial of "hacking back" seems the like the wrong[0] approach. [0] - I realize many an HNer lives in a land with a duty to retreat so this might be foreign to them.

gm-conspiracy 8y ago

Also, if the victim's 'services' are being hacked (of which they do not host themselves), would it not be more akin to a thief breaking into a rented self-storage locker? The castle doctrine would definitely not apply in that situation.

mieseratte 8y ago
> The castle doctrine would definitely not apply in that situation. This is flat-out wrong, at least in the states I'm familiar with. Most states' Castle Doctrine applies to home, work, vehicles, and property. If I'm out in the country on land used for hunting, the "Castle Doctrine" still applies assuming the normal criteria are met. If I'm at the site, I have a right to defense regardless of it being my primary residence or a rented facility.
- gm-conspiracy 8y ago
  No, what I meant was you, as a human, not being physically present, it is just your private property that is "stored" at that location.

mieseratte 8y ago

> So, it seems like the logical extension into cyberspace would be that you can do anything you want to the attacker's computer while they are connected to your systems, but you can't pursue them once they've gone, the same as kinetic castle doctrine. That's more or less what I'm imagining, not after the fact find-fix-finish. If I come home from work, power on my machine, and find someone is DoS'ing my connection should I be able to route through an alternative connection and take down the offending machine? Honestly, I don't know how to feel because there is greater potential for collateral than with, say, a man in a ski mask kicking in my door. At the same time wholesale denial of "hacking back" seems the like the wrong[0] approach. [0] - I realize many an HNer lives in a land with a duty to retreat so this might be foreign to them.