4 ms·

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 pur

by 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.

by koide 14y ago

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.