[IP] Re: NYT article on the (ever-more-sophitsticated) bot wars

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology" <synthesis.law.and.technology@gmail.com>

Date: December 10, 2008 9:49:34 AM EST

Subject: Re: [IP] Re: NYT article on the (ever-more-sophitsticated) bot wars

With respect, this appears to be the kind of thinking that got us into the mess.

How does making someone responsible for the criminal activities of a relatively untouchable other person make any sense at all either from a legal or moral or technical perspective?

To use the very flawed swimming pool analogy, this is akin to making Tony responsible for someone from Venezuela air-dropping toxic chemicals into his pool while illegally overflying his country. I would expect that if Tony thinks this is a good legislation to pass, that he would be first in favour of automated roads, speed controls on cars outside of automated roads, mandatory weight limits on people and banning the production of tobacco on any local land.

Applying 'lets fix it here' just doesn't work on a global problem. Please, let's not waste any energy thinking that we can magically pass a law and pretend that the internet isn't global.

To be more specific, if we could mandate that the owner of a computer in Canada is responsible for the damages done by someone in Russia to computers in Ghana we would have solved all the worlds' problems long ago. To think that passing a law in any one country will work without the rest is simply not thinking through the problem enough.

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:38 AM, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Lauck <tlauck@madriver.com>
Date: December 9, 2008 12:07:25 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: NYT article on the (ever-more-sophitsticated) bot wars

There is an simple legal change that could be made that would lead to an improved cybersecurity situation:

1. Owners of networked computers would be held legally responsible for all activities performed by their computers, including those caused by viruses and BOTs. They would be responsible if their computers sent information that caused harm. They would also be responsible if their computers took local action on the basis of bogus information that they received. They would be responsible, period.

2. Computer software and hardware vendors would not be able to disclaim liability for security bugs. They would share responsibility with their customers for the effects of these bugs.

Eventually, laws like these are going be passed, just as laws require swimming pools to be secured with locked gates and fences. It may be a bit early for such draconian simplicity, but it would be a good idea for the industry to think about what they would do were such laws to pass.

Tony Lauck
https://www.aglauck.com

Anthony G. Lauck
PO Box 59
Warren, VT 05674
Southface 5 (for UPS and FedEX)
81 Park Ave
Warren, VT 05674
(802) 583-4405 (802) 329-2006 (FAX)

--

interesting-people message