[Nettime-bold] Re: Fw: Re: <nettime> if ($hacking =~ $terrorism) {

[Amy Alexander <plagiari@plagiarist.org>]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Lachlan Brown wrote:
>
> However, hacking is not terrorism. Unless the hack is specifically intended to disrupt electronic networks to influence by terror government and public opinion, or the hack contains content shown to be intelligence to aid an act of terror. I can't think of any possible example where terror could be induced by code and distributed computing.
> Irritation, boredom, hilarity, annoyance, yes, but outright 757 --> WTC terror, no.
>
>  The basic legal argument is that acts of terror are, to put it mildly, undemocratic means to influence opinion and policy. Hacking is more likely to impact upon individual, institutional or corporate rights, for which there is ample contingency in the criminal and civil laws of most countries.
>

well, yes, it definitely seems to defy logic and i think most people's
understanding of existing legal definitions, but, if the securityfocus
article is correct, then:

"Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the
provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to
crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to
deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that
harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a
computer are included in the definition of terrorism."

meaning, they're planning to write certain network/systems-based misbehaviors
into the legal definition of terrorism in the US anyway.

note, this is a quote from www.securityfocus.com - a well-known computer
security website. i have not been able to locate the actual text of
the ATA that includes this so far. (seems the recent revisions aren't
on the eff site?) anybody know if this is online someplace?

and yes, you bring up the "hacking" vs. "cracking" terminology issue,
since you and i and millions of others "hack" at code without breaking
laws or even being naughty. it's "hacking" as opposed to "cracking."
it's interesting to see security focus using the term "hacking" rather
than "cracking," which is usually a faux-pas made by the non-technical
press. i'm guessing they may have used the term "hacking" because the ATA
seems to be including offenses that aren't strictly "cracking" in the
sense of breaking into a machine. (or they're just lazy or trying a
cheap trick to get their readers' attention. :-) )

-@

-- 

plagiarist.org
Recontextualizing script-kiddyism as net-art for over 1/20 of a century.



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold