> I'm a privacy advocate and I think that the new law needs some serious > debate. I'm just wanting to be able to do my job without having obscure (and in some cases obscene) "laws" that have been dropped into place as a "stop gap" that never gets the attention it requires with respect to wording etc, so that ambiguity is removed. > If someone breaks into a system, then in some respect that person has > identified a hole that needs to be fixed. If that hole goes unchecked > folks with knowledge of that hole will be able to exploit it without > detection. > That's where the debate of the law should pick up. Who is to > keep those > in check that are creating the law? The law makers are not technical > savvy! From what I've seen, it would appear that the US have worded this correctly. (insert IANAL here). It could still be mis-interpreted, but the quotes that I saw, read correctly. Come visit us on the island of political ignorance :( > I must say that I'm not for the hacking systems except my own. That's > how I find things that I need to fix. Still the law needs to > be debated. > The next law might be mandatory key stroke loggers on each new machine > sold just because no one questioned laws that were being passed in a > moment of anger. The acts that occurred on September 11th indeed are > tragic. But, the more laws we pass will eventually make our freedoms > less free. > And then I say what the hell were we fighting for? Again, see the wording. If its your hardware, no damage done. I'd imagine if, as a security consultant where you are hired for penetration testing, you will have a binding contract that will give you immunity from any prosecutions. > How does this fit into ISA? Well we need to keep reading the logs and > doing some tracking of our own. Once we find the destinations notify > the webmasters and web administrators. Yup cost some time and > money but > well worth the effort to keep more laws off the books. It doesn't, unless it gets passed, upon which US residents can start laying charges.