3 ms·

If it is impossible to enforce laws against cybercrimes, one option would be to bring back the concept of outlawery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw https:

If it is impossible to enforce laws against cybercrimes, one option would be to bring back the concept of outlawery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw Once a jury finds that a given domain was responsible for a crime but it was impossible to actually go after them, the government would declare them to be a fair target for any hackers. Note: I don't know if this would actually be a good idea. I just think its an interesting idea.

TACIXAT 8y ago
A principle that is discussed is hacking back. It actually almost passed in Georgia, USA. [1] The idea would be that if something was attacking you, you could go on the offense to disrupt it. Personally, I think that would be a lot of fun. 1. https://threatpost.com/georgia-governor-vetoes-controversial-hack-back-bill/131822/ https://threatpost.com/georgia-governor-vetoes-controversial...
- jstarfish 8y ago
  It almost passed in Georgia because our legislators are idiots. They also almost passed a law criminalizing security research altogether. The problem with allowing open season is that unlike the wild west, outlaws did not literally hijack the bodies of victims to masquerade as someone else before engaging in criminal activity. The "hacker" you're attacking is usually another victim of the operator serving as a proxy. Attribution in the cybersecurity space is very difficult and prone to error. You'd just be institutionalizing lynch mobs.
saiya-jin 8y ago
You can just submit TLS certificate revocation and web would stop working pretty quickly with most modern browsers. Or get them removed from DNS network for a quick death. The problem is, morals are relative - one country/judge/group of people can find something breaking the local law, while being OK somewhere else, ie in place of actual location of servers. Who will decide what is OK to punish and what not? Half of the world would have issues with western (ie US) view on things, we can say the same about west vs some african/arab dictatorship.

TACIXAT 8y ago

A principle that is discussed is hacking back. It actually almost passed in Georgia, USA. [1] The idea would be that if something was attacking you, you could go on the offense to disrupt it. Personally, I think that would be a lot of fun. 1. https://threatpost.com/georgia-governor-vetoes-controversial-hack-back-bill/131822/ https://threatpost.com/georgia-governor-vetoes-controversial...

jstarfish 8y ago
It almost passed in Georgia because our legislators are idiots. They also almost passed a law criminalizing security research altogether. The problem with allowing open season is that unlike the wild west, outlaws did not literally hijack the bodies of victims to masquerade as someone else before engaging in criminal activity. The "hacker" you're attacking is usually another victim of the operator serving as a proxy. Attribution in the cybersecurity space is very difficult and prone to error. You'd just be institutionalizing lynch mobs.

saiya-jin 8y ago

You can just submit TLS certificate revocation and web would stop working pretty quickly with most modern browsers. Or get them removed from DNS network for a quick death. The problem is, morals are relative - one country/judge/group of people can find something breaking the local law, while being OK somewhere else, ie in place of actual location of servers. Who will decide what is OK to punish and what not? Half of the world would have issues with western (ie US) view on things, we can say the same about west vs some african/arab dictatorship.