Comments: Security Professionals Advised to Button Lips

Move to another country (legal jurisdiction, service provider). Go on stike. Withhold your talents/abilities.
Get off your butt. You people have incredibly valuable knowlege. My impression is that the NSA isn't anything compared to what it used to be. I don't really know.

bob

Posted by bob at October 25, 2005 06:21 PM

You and I and many other security experts have some good opinions about what "unauthorized" means, but British Telecom disagreed. They convinced the judge so thoroughly that he found Cuthbert guilty even though he practically admitted the verdict was unjust. Cuthbert, Schwartz, and other cases have started creating some very bad precedent on what "unauthorized" means. The more this precedent gets frozen into place, the less room defense lawyers have to argue for a more just meaning. I encourage defense lawyers to continue to vigorously make such arguments. Meanwhile network professionals, either directly or through the lobbyists for the corporations they work for, should cut to the heart of the problem. Network professionals, and curious web users in general, should lobby against the overly broad and vague statutory language that was pushed through by a previous generation of lobbyists before the advent of the Web and with insufficient input from network professionals. We have a window of political opportunity to do this while legislatures around the world react to the phishing problem.

Posted by nick at October 26, 2005 03:33 PM

[Seen on Risks:] A woman is being summoned to court, and faces a 1000-pound fine if found guilty, over non-payment of a 1.20-pound London bus fare.

Most of London's transport system is moving over to the Oyster card system, where quasi-smartcards are touched against readers at tube station barriers or doors to buses. A card can contain season tickets, top-up funds for
pay-as-you-go travel, or both.

According to the television news coverage today, Jo Cahill believed that she had paid on entering the bus, but the reader did not register her card in order to deduct the fare from the top-up funds. An inspector has treated her
as a fare-dodger, even though she explained the situation and offered to pay.

This seems to set the precedent that users are required to confirm that the reader has indeed registered their card, even though the visual and audible signals are not always clear. Transport for London claims that its Oyster card readers rarely fail, although they do not specify whether or not users will always be taken to court when they do fail. (I frequently get onto buses where the reader has a post-it note saying "reader broken" stuck to it.)

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4361286.stm

nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

Posted by Risks at October 27, 2005 07:48 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Hit Preview to see your comment.
MT::App::Comments=HASH(0x562c59058668) Subroutine MT::Blog::SUPER::site_url redefined at /home/iang/www/fc/cgi-bin/mt/lib/MT/Object.pm line 125.