3 ms·
Pretty sure a hacker would be perpetrating an actual, punishable-by-trial crime in forging those legal documents. That's generally the first regulation that the
by cabaalis 6y ago
Pretty sure a hacker would be perpetrating an actual, punishable-by-trial crime in forging those legal documents. That's generally the first regulation that the US imposes.
A disinclination to regulate anything is a good idea in a society that generally punishes bad behavior after the behavior has been perpetrated. I would have doubts for instance about government regulating the process for sending and receiving SMS - would you want every new software or protocol to have to go through some kind of bureaucratic review before it can be used?
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoThat doesn't work well when the criminals are working from a sunny foreign beach resort.
- coliveira 6y agoExactly, the only thing that the US achieves is creating thieves that have a propensity to go big fast, so they can forever evade the law.
- pdpi 6y agoA key part of regulation is placing the onus of solving problems on those best equipped to solve them. You don’t need the government to mandate what the protocols should be, you just fine carriers for allowing this sort of bad outcome and let them sort things out.
- efreak 6y agoThis requires trusting "those best equipped" to prioritize the rules over money when the fines aren't significant enough to affect the bottom line.
- efreak 6y ago> would you want every new software or protocol to have to go through some kind of bureaucratic review before it can be used? Absolutely yes if said protocol is to be used by an entire population as a basic means of communication. Either by the government or a non-profit not tied to the industry. Protocols should also not be allowed to be secret if used at scale. I see no reason to make a distinction between computer protocols and in-person safety protocols. The threat level is different, but it covers just as many (if not more) people.