Editing Aaron projects/CFAA
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Draft outline of replacement law underway</center> | Draft outline of replacement law underway</center> | ||
;Goal: Let's | ;Goal: Let's prepare for a full repeal of the CFAA and replacement with sane law. | ||
;Questions: How would we construct good law in these areas, from scratch? | ;Questions: How would we construct good law in these areas, from scratch? | ||
: How do different areas of law, policy, and internet governance view the law and its impact? | : How do different areas of law, policy, and internet governance view the law and its impact? | ||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
What substantive things should be in a rational computer crime law? | What substantive things should be in a rational computer crime law? | ||
=== Positive principles === | |||
(''see the draft'') | |||
; Parallelism with non-computer crime law | ; Parallelism with non-computer crime law | ||
Line 71: | Line 74: | ||
; Proportionate punishment | ; Proportionate punishment | ||
=== Negative principles === | |||
; Avoid confusion/overlap between different parts of the government : in terms of means and ways | ; Avoid confusion/overlap between different parts of the government : in terms of means and ways | ||
* b/t different parts of the government | * b/t different parts of the government | ||
Line 83: | Line 88: | ||
** we feel as though there is sufficient persistent identity in the community that even pseudonymous hackers care about their reputations. | ** we feel as though there is sufficient persistent identity in the community that even pseudonymous hackers care about their reputations. | ||
* ''' | * '''focus on bad ''access'', leave ''use'' to other laws''' - laws on copyright, trade secret, identity theft, espionage, extortion, and fraud govern most of the "scary" use cases. | ||
** In this way, we are leaving the "hats" (black/white/grey/green) discussion for the community norms or existing law. | ** In this way, we are leaving the "hats" (black/white/grey/green) discussion for the community norms or existing law. | ||
* '''Consent should always be a defense''' - server owners ask members of the public to do some weird stuff against their systems, but as long as they ask for it, it should never be a crime to access one's computer in that way. | * '''Consent should always be a defense''' - server owners ask members of the public to do some weird stuff against their systems, but as long as they ask for it, it should never be a crime to access one's computer in that way. | ||
* ''' | * As to code-based vulnerabilities and authentication measures, '''some level of technical effectiveness should be considered.''' A "reasonable" standard may not be appropriate, as defining what is "reasonable" may lead to unnecessary confusion. But some consideration should be made to ensure that trivially-overcome measures are not considered within the scope. | ||
==== What should be unlawful ==== | ==== What should be unlawful ==== | ||
* ''' | * '''hold the party intending to do the bad behavior culpable''' - don't track liability to a person whose computer was unwittingly used to commit the crime. | ||
* '''Circumvention of a code-based authentication measure''' | * '''Circumvention of a code-based authentication measure''' should be unlawful (leaving proportionality for another discussion). This includes cracking, password guessing, or human-engineering password disclosure. | ||
* '''Exploiting a code-based vulnerability to obtain information''' should be unlawful (leaving proportionality for another discussion). We are thinking of things like a SQL injection hack. | * '''Exploiting a code-based vulnerability to obtain information''' should be unlawful (leaving proportionality for another discussion). We are thinking of things like a SQL injection hack. | ||
* '''Knowingly deleting or impairing the integrity | * '''Knowingly deleting or impairing the integrity of the work''' should be unlawful if done intentionally or recklessly. Moving down to negligence or strict liability at a certain damage threshold is harder to say. | ||
==== Uncertain areas ==== | ==== Uncertain areas ==== | ||
* ''' | * '''penetration testing''' is squishy - an open call for bug bounties should be treated like consent to access the site (again, using laws govern bad uses) | ||
* '''"accidentally open" sites are squishy''' - e.g., sites that were supposed to be behind an authentication layer but are not. To a certain extent, it may be best to place the fault of this onto the coder of the site, with the comfort that certain uses by the obtainer of information may still be unlawful. | |||
=== Open questions === | === Open questions === | ||
Line 120: | Line 125: | ||
: This tends to be pretty bad. It's clearly defeating the system, when it requires finding a subtle exploit | : This tends to be pretty bad. It's clearly defeating the system, when it requires finding a subtle exploit | ||
: Can be less bad when a system has an auth system but doesn't use it (e.g. it's never checked) | : Can be less bad when a system has an auth system but doesn't use it (e.g. it's never checked) | ||
; What's the ECTF doing? Who could provide oversight? | ; What's the ECTF doing? Who could provide oversight? | ||
: (cf [http://www.technewsdaily.com/16445-fix-hacking-laws.html fix-hacking-laws essay] and Robert Graham's comment) | : (cf [http://www.technewsdaily.com/16445-fix-hacking-laws.html fix-hacking-laws essay] and Robert Graham's comment) | ||
== Active proposals == | == Active proposals == | ||
Line 162: | Line 165: | ||
== Scenarios == | == Scenarios == | ||
: ''Add yours below | : ''Add yours below'' | ||
* ''War Games'' scenario: someone breaks into a secured machine, accesses government secrets, and uses them to wreak havoc | * ''War Games'' scenario: someone breaks into a secured machine, accesses government secrets, and uses them to wreak havoc | ||
* Rooting a box: Someone finds a way to log into a server, has a way to gain root on the server, and executes arbitrary code on it. | * Rooting a box: Someone finds a way to log into a server, has a way to gain root on the server, and executes arbitrary code on it. | ||
* DDOS: Someone finds a way to overload a server by using its public services very frequently, causing it to be | * DDOS: Someone finds a way to overload a server by using its public services very frequently, causing it to be unavaiable for days. | ||