5 ms·

Well, he addresses this in the article: "Even if we'll probably be found innocent, why take the risk? Better to keep quiet." That has a chilling effect, suppres

by koide 14y ago

Well, he addresses this in the article: "Even if we'll probably be found innocent, why take the risk? Better to keep quiet." That has a chilling effect, suppressing free speech and is generally harmful to society. In addition, there's a whole grey area which he highlights and you disregard just by trusting the courts, which doesn't prevent you from getting arrested and sued with all the financial and mental stress those things entail.

saraid216 14y ago
The entire point of the courts is to address grey areas. Legislation will never be perfect, and will never be able to account for things on a case-by-case basis, and will never be able to keep up with change. If you want better legislation, then you need to make sure the people writing it are well-educated in the areas you care about. This is the original purpose of lobbying.
- koide 14y ago
  And the entire point of the article is that this particular law is so full of grey areas that it's at best useless (in the sense of working for its intended purpose) and at worst actively harmful due to the chilling effect.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Since this law was passed in 1986 (according to the article), Hacker News, Google, and Facebook were started. I'm not impressed by the supposed chilling effect. The article's claim about the chilling effect was, of course, highly specific to the author's personal area of expertise. This is based on something I can't comment on: that the details of weev's case are generalizable to all cybersecurity researchers. I don't know the details of weev's case; do you think it's generalizable? My quick Google yielded me a Wired article that ended with weev laughing about how it might be illegal and the likely possibility it would damage a legitimate business's stock price. Is that a thing all cybersecurity researchers do? I mean, I agree that the law sucks. That's fairly self-evident here. But what, exactly, do you guys want done about it? "Oh no, something bad happened 26 years ago and I just realized it because of something that happened recently" is weak. Talk to the EFF. Talk to your Congresscritters. Ask other people to do so. Sound and fury signify nothing. If you feel so terribly chilled, explain it to the politicians and get some lawyers working on the problem. I'd suggest civil disobedience, but you probably don't have the courage to get arrested if you're busy being chilled. Yes, it sucks to be a case study. Cancer patients go through it all the time: the result? LESS CANCER. That's what the courts are also for. You go up there and say, "My situation shows how this law is stupid." You take a beating as all the relevant details are dragged out and scrutinized so that they can be sure. And hopefully, they agree with you and set precedent that the law is, in fact, stupid and fewer people have to deal with it in the future.
    - koide 14y ago
      Do you even know what a chilling effect is? What does the appearance of Google or Facebook have to do with it? I'm not personally scared, but I understand what the problems with this kind of laws (bad, vague ones) are. The problems almost disappear when everything works as expected. The real problem which you ignore is that laws of this sort give the authorities a big loophole for abuse (which probably is not what has happened to weev, but that's not what I'm discussing.) If you think that's not a worry, I envy your worldview. That said, I fully agree that more formal action should be taken, contacting EFF and congressmen and whatnot. But writing about it can motivate people who were not in the know to act, it's not just empty "sound and fury." I recommend this book that's somewhat related to this problem: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security/dp/0300172311 http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security...
    - sp332 14y ago
      The chilling effect is on security research, not on technology in general.
- nateabele 14y ago
  > The entire point of the courts is to address grey areas. Let me know how that works out if you get dragged into a patent lawsuit in East Texas. :-)
  - saraid216 14y ago
    I, too, enjoy giving exceptions that prove the rule. Thanks!

by koide 14y ago

saraid216 14y ago

The entire point of the courts is to address grey areas. Legislation will never be perfect, and will never be able to account for things on a case-by-case basis, and will never be able to keep up with change. If you want better legislation, then you need to make sure the people writing it are well-educated in the areas you care about. This is the original purpose of lobbying.

koide 14y ago
And the entire point of the article is that this particular law is so full of grey areas that it's at best useless (in the sense of working for its intended purpose) and at worst actively harmful due to the chilling effect.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Since this law was passed in 1986 (according to the article), Hacker News, Google, and Facebook were started. I'm not impressed by the supposed chilling effect. The article's claim about the chilling effect was, of course, highly specific to the author's personal area of expertise. This is based on something I can't comment on: that the details of weev's case are generalizable to all cybersecurity researchers. I don't know the details of weev's case; do you think it's generalizable? My quick Google yielded me a Wired article that ended with weev laughing about how it might be illegal and the likely possibility it would damage a legitimate business's stock price. Is that a thing all cybersecurity researchers do? I mean, I agree that the law sucks. That's fairly self-evident here. But what, exactly, do you guys want done about it? "Oh no, something bad happened 26 years ago and I just realized it because of something that happened recently" is weak. Talk to the EFF. Talk to your Congresscritters. Ask other people to do so. Sound and fury signify nothing. If you feel so terribly chilled, explain it to the politicians and get some lawyers working on the problem. I'd suggest civil disobedience, but you probably don't have the courage to get arrested if you're busy being chilled. Yes, it sucks to be a case study. Cancer patients go through it all the time: the result? LESS CANCER. That's what the courts are also for. You go up there and say, "My situation shows how this law is stupid." You take a beating as all the relevant details are dragged out and scrutinized so that they can be sure. And hopefully, they agree with you and set precedent that the law is, in fact, stupid and fewer people have to deal with it in the future.
  - koide 14y ago
    Do you even know what a chilling effect is? What does the appearance of Google or Facebook have to do with it? I'm not personally scared, but I understand what the problems with this kind of laws (bad, vague ones) are. The problems almost disappear when everything works as expected. The real problem which you ignore is that laws of this sort give the authorities a big loophole for abuse (which probably is not what has happened to weev, but that's not what I'm discussing.) If you think that's not a worry, I envy your worldview. That said, I fully agree that more formal action should be taken, contacting EFF and congressmen and whatnot. But writing about it can motivate people who were not in the know to act, it's not just empty "sound and fury." I recommend this book that's somewhat related to this problem: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security/dp/0300172311 http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security...
  - sp332 14y ago
    The chilling effect is on security research, not on technology in general.
nateabele 14y ago
> The entire point of the courts is to address grey areas. Let me know how that works out if you get dragged into a patent lawsuit in East Texas. :-)
- saraid216 14y ago
  I, too, enjoy giving exceptions that prove the rule. Thanks!