Hacker vs. Counter-Hacker — a Legal Debate 182
Freddybear writes "If your computer has been cracked and subverted for use by a botnet or other remote-access attack, is it legal for you to hack back into the system from which the attack originated? Over the last couple of years three legal scholars and bloggers have debated the question on The Volokh Conspiracy weblog. The linked webpage collects that debate into a coherent document. 'The debaters are:
- Stewart Baker, a former official at the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson with a large cybersecurity practice. Stewart Baker makes the policy case for counterhacking and challenges the traditional view of what remedies are authorized by the language of the CFAA.
- Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at George Washington School of Law, a former computer crimes prosecutor, and one of the most respected computer crime scholars. Orin Kerr defends the traditional view of the Act against both Stewart Baker and Eugene Volokh.
- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, and a sophisticated technology lawyer, presents a challenge grounded in common law understandings of trespass and tort.'"
....on the gripping hand (Score:5, Funny)
How can I possibly be responsible if conflicting botnets are duking it out through my thoroughly pwned computer? That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Re:Robber vs Counter-Robber (Score:5, Funny)
Throwing a computer into the mix and using new words doesn't change the underlying philosophical debate, and certainly won't ever bring it to an end.
True, but apparently it does mean that I can patent it!
Re:Robber vs Counter-Robber (Score:2, Funny)