A So-Called "Hack Back" Bill Has New Supporters

[vanished]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'd say the stand your ground law or what ever it's called is fairly similar to this sort of thing, not that it's a law that applies to the entire nation mind you. I feel threatened so I'm allowed to kill you seems even more insane than this to me.

Even with that though, it's a bit of a different situation, and we don't even have to go that far - normal self defence laws that allow retaliation with equal/necessary force also would be sort of along these same lines.  The difference is with that there's an imminent physical threat and "defending" yourself is indistinguishable from attacking the other person, unless you happen to be a martial arts master and they don't have a gun (but I think that's a pretty niche scenario).  When it comes to tech, there is a very clear and distinct line between defence (security) and revenge attacking them ("hacking").  This seems to needlessly be allowing, and thus encouraging additional (what are currently) crimes that would only escalate things more and open a whole other can of worms for a variety of reasons, including what many others have mentioned.

[TheUzu]

When you spam ping google severs and they hack your smart fridge and give you food poisoning.

 

Google will then target you with food and fridge adds.

 

THE FUTURE IS NOW

[Bananasplit_00]

this is hilarius, this is just stupid to another level. we are back in the stoneage or something where its an eye for an eye? i thought we moved on tbh

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Even with that though, it's a bit of a different situation, and we don't even have to go that far - normal self defence laws that allow retaliation with equal/necessary force also would be sort of along these same lines.  The difference is with that there's an imminent physical threat and "defending" yourself is indistinguishable from attacking the other person, unless you happen to be a martial arts master and they don't have a gun (but I think that's a pretty niche scenario).  When it comes to tech, there is a very clear and distinct line between defence (security) and revenge attacking them ("hacking").  This seems to needlessly be allowing, and thus encouraging additional (what are currently) crimes that would only escalate things more and open a whole other can of worms for a variety of reasons, including what many others have mentioned.

It was the best example I could think of at the time, your self defense example is way better than mine lol.

That law is still even more insane though.

[vanished]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It was the best example I could think of at the time, your self defense example is way better than mine lol.

That law is still even more insane though.

Yeah this makes no sense.  Like I said, the closest thing I can think of is self-defence laws, but those are very clearly about defence, where as this is clearly about retaliation.  It's the difference between someone attacking you and you defending yourself vs you escaping and then hunting them down and attacking them later, or the difference between someone trying to rob your house and the alarm system locks them in until the police come, and them breaking in and robbing you so you break into their house and rob them.  I can't think of any precedent for a law like this (except perhaps the one you mentioned, if it really does work like that, which I agree would be equally stupid to this, but even then it's still different) and I don't think we should start making one.

[elkenrod]

Ghost in the Shell prepared us for this!

 

Norton offensive firewall 2020 edition is going to be LIT.

[Soonercoop]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you guys over there should base these new laws on your gun laws,  because hey, if it's good enough to allow deranged people access to guns in the name of self defense then why not let them have access to the tools to carry out the same "self defense" online.   What could go wrong?

 

 

You can't equate possession of weapons to legally sanctioning the action of hacking in defense. The equivalent of this bill in terms of guns is allowing people the action of actually defending themselves by discharging a weapon when endangered. Entirely different from simply possesing a weapon. Imo this is an entirely new can of worms because a physical self defense investigation is a whole ton simpler than this would be. If they want to allow this it should be perhaps on a case by case basis rather than a blanket ruling.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Soonercoop21 said:

The equivalent of this bill in terms of guns is allowing people the action of actually defending themselves by discharging a weapon when endangered.

 

No no no, hackback occurs after the event,   firearm laws for defense are prior to the event in order to protect during an event.

 

All that aside,  I was merely pointing out the complexity of such laws and easily flawed they become when you can't control how people use said tools.

[Skanky Sylveon]

I don't think that Hacking back is an appropriate means of retaliation.

Actually, that's the problem with this law.  It doesn't protect you, it just gives you a legal means of exacting revenge.

I suppose that it might deter some would be hackers. 

However, unlike nuclear deterrence, one doesn't risk wiping out all life on earth if someone decides to be a dick.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

However, unlike nuclear deterrence, one doesn't risk wiping out all life on earth if someone decides to be a dick.

Skynet.... 

[captain_to_fire]

12 hours ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

I don't think that Hacking back is an appropriate means of retaliation.

Actually, that's the problem with this law.  It doesn't protect you, it just gives you a legal means of exacting revenge.

I suppose that it might deter some would be hackers. 

However, unlike nuclear deterrence, one doesn't risk wiping out all life on earth if someone decides to be a dick.

It’s happening already. US recently just launched a massive DDOS attack on North Korea as retaliation.  ?? https://wccftech.com/cyberwarfare-us-ddos-north-korea/ 

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

It’s happening already. US recently just launched a massive DDOS attack on North Korea as retaliation.  ?? https://wccftech.com/cyberwarfare-us-ddos-north-korea/ 

With all the tech resources the US has, they decided to ddos?  What have I missed? surely that did nothing, like throwing stones on your neighbors roof, the best you can hope for is you disturb his sleep for 15 minutes.

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

With all the tech resources the US has, they decided to ddos?  What have I missed? surely that did nothing, like throwing stones on your neighbors roof, the best you can hope for is you disturb his sleep for 15 minutes.

It’s a message sent by the US that they’re not to be messed around. I certainly don’t feel pity on North Korea after the US DDOSed them.  

[Skanky Sylveon]

41 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

It’s happening already. US recently just launched a massive DDOS attack on North Korea as retaliation.  ?? https://wccftech.com/cyberwarfare-us-ddos-north-korea/ 

Well, that seems petty.  Seriously though, DDOS?  I guess we have script kiddies working at Cyber Command.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

It’s a message sent by the US that they’re not to be messed around. I certainly don’t feel pity on North Korea after the US DDOSed them.  

I don't feel pity for them.  It just amuses me that a ddos attack is somehow a useful tool.  I mean NK internet only has something like 1024 IP addresses, you could almost get the same result by running a car into a telegraph pole.

[Skanky Sylveon]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I don't feel pity for them.

I don't pity North Korea's government.  I do however pity their citizens.

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

Well, that seems petty.  Seriously though, DDOS?  I guess we have script kiddies working at Cyber Command.

I think an American sponsored apt would be unnecessary given that NK doesn’t even have enough electricity to power its entire nation. I wonder how many of their  computers are connected to the internet? Probably just a dozen of their antiquated computers that’s why the US finds it useless to launch an APT attack on DPRK. 

[Skanky Sylveon]

5 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I think an American sponsored apt would be unnecessary given that NK doesn’t even have enough electricity to power its entire nation. I wonder how many of their  computers are connected to the internet? Probably just a dozen of their antiquated computers that’s why the US finds it useless to launch an APT attack on DPRK. 

You have a point.  It still sounds silly though.  

[kilgore_T]

pre-emptive hack back your honour

 

 

[mynameisjuan]

I dont get this. Like WTF are you going to hack back? First if you are any hacker with a brain you will be on a VPN with a burnable OS. There is nothing much that can come out of hacking back. 

 

So if you have enough proof to prove they hack you just bring it to the authorities to arrest them. 

[vanished]

15 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

I dont get this. Like WTF are you going to hack back? First if you are any hacker with a brain you will be on a VPN with a burnable OS. There is nothing much that can come out of hacking back. 

 

So if you have enough proof to prove they hack you just bring it to the authorities to arrest them. 

Here's something else I just realized.  If you've got the skills and ability to hack someone back, you probably have the ability to keep them out in the first place

[SansVarnic]

I can see why this came about (not that I agree to it) but whom would oversee/supervise the "back-hacking™" to make sure only what is allow to take place happen?

 

No this is a bad idea.