The title is a little bait-y, but the piece is worth reading.
What decision-makers are not really thinking is that by threatening legitimate security researchers (or well-meaning insiders), they leave the field open to the malicious hackers. However, with government money in play, there could be an interest to leave backdoors open for other shenanigans (like rigged tendering).
I'm glad you think it's worth reading. The title isn't bait, however. President Obama wants to make 18 U.S.C. 1030 tougher than it already is, and it already prescribes automatic jail time for anyone the government thinks is a so-called cyber threat.
President Obama does not want to throw me, personally, in jail. That's link bait. A deceptive headline used to draw eyes.
Slinging mud at specific politicians is not productive, since most of them don't know enough to understand why this language is unacceptably vague. I'd hazard that most of Congress is in favor of this language. We need to educate them as to why this language is dangerous, not start a partisan battle. The problems with this legislation are way bigger than Obama.
Of course it's bait. Not only is it inaccurate (President Obama has never even heard of me, so I'm sure he doesn't actively want me in jail) it entirely fails to tell the reader what the hell it's talking about.
Is it about drugs? Is it about software piracy? Is it about fisheries law? I don't know, I haven't actually bothered to click on the article because I object to being baited with such a mysterious-sounding headline.
I just came into the thread to complain about the headline. Hi there!
You can hardly expect politicians to understand the ramifications of the legislation they're proposing. Most of it they haven't even read.
Though, to be fair, malicious hackers are the people they're out to get, just that well-meaning people would get caught in the crossfire. Granted, matters are much too complex to be understood by politicians or even many corporate lawyers.
>> You can hardly expect politicians to understand the ramifications of the legislation they're proposing.
> That anyone would ever say this in a non-ironic sense is flabbergasting.
Legislators write the laws and then courts figure out the ramifications. Laws get written because of some catalyst, but I wouldn't expect anybody to be able to understand the full ramifications until the law is in place for a while and people have started testing it in the legal system.
You can hardly expect politicians to understand the
ramifications of the legislation they're proposing.
Sound of jaw hitting floor
If there is one thing I expect politicians to understand, it is exactly that: the laws they propose. Passing the laws that serve their country the best, that is the most important part of their job. Everything else can be delegated, but this is why they spend time together in a room, debating issues and voting on laws. They don't even need to read it: they need a trusted expert to tell them what decision they are taking for the future of their country.
No, I suspect he probably agrees. And when he suggests that he is being asked to do the impossible, he is blamed for the problem by a public that doesn't want to face the more complex reality (kind of like blaming a security researcher for finding a bug).
This common attitude ensures that successful politicians are the ones who maintain the illusion of competence and decisiveness in all circumstances.
The article contains nothing relevant to the claim that 18 USC 1030 "prescribes automatic jail time for anyone the government thinks is a so-called cyber threat".
What decision-makers are not really thinking is that by threatening legitimate security researchers (or well-meaning insiders), they leave the field open to the malicious hackers. However, with government money in play, there could be an interest to leave backdoors open for other shenanigans (like rigged tendering).