3 ms·
The scope of these activities, especially when combined with the NSA's (and GCHQ's) indiscriminate "hack everything" attitude. When the NSA attacks so much infr
by pdkl95 12y ago
The scope of these activities, especially when combined with the NSA's (and GCHQ's) indiscriminate "hack everything" attitude. When the NSA attacks so much infrastructure - including standards they are supposed to be supporting - at some point they start creating a reasonable doubt about the true actors behind any network attack.
This could have various consequences, but one obvious one is how it affects a jury. It would probably be a lot easier to conclude there is a reasonable doubt the accused did not commit some type of computer or network crime when the NSA is attacking so much infrastructure. If the NSA was known to be targeting legitimate targets with limited, targeted activities that did not affect everybody else, the doubt that any random computer crime could have been the NSA's responsibility would not be reasonable.
- leereeves 12y agoIt's unlikely that someone who knows about this would serve on a jury in a computer crime case, or that evidence of NSA activities would be admitted in trial.
- pdkl95 12y agoJuries don't know about a lot of topics. In an adversarial system, it is the responsibility of the each party to inform the judge and jury what is relevant to the case.
- leereeves 12y agoHence the second half of my comment: > or that evidence of NSA activities would be admitted in trial.
- LLWM 12y agoIf the NSA is really that overwhelmingly powerful, it is irrelevant whether a jury can be convinced of some random hacker's guilt. Let him go free if you must. If he is legitimately dangerous, the NSA can shut him down or point him the right way.