At 11.17 -0400 0-05-07, Keith Moore wrote:
> in my mind the people most responsible for the viruses are those who
> built systems that were so easily compromised.
>
> we don't need protocol support to track them down.
That is certainly one factor of importance. But even the
best systems can be compromised, and crimes directly using
the Internet, such as ping overloads, mail bombing, using
vulnerabilities like buffer overlow, etc., do occur. Also,
designing systems which are more safe from viruses may be
systems which are less user-friendly. For example, I have
set my MS Office programs to always ask me before running a
macro in an unkown file in it. The advantage is less risk for
viruses, but the disadvantage is that I have to OK those
questions from MS Office of whether to accept macros. And
if they occur too open, there is a risk that I click "yes"
before thinking through the risk of doing this.
The general view in the Internet community seems to be that
the rights to privacy and anonymity are more important than
catching the increasing amount of criminality on the net.
But would it not be possible to design methods which
protects privacy and anonymity and still makes it possible
to catch criminals. Privacy and anonymity should be
preserved as long as people use them for legal activities.
If, however, they commit crimes, like spreading viruses,
mail bombing, ping overload, etc., are they still entitled
to privacy and anonymity? Can we design logging and tracing
methods which are protected so that they cannot be used
without cause.
I do not know about the laws in the U.S.A., but in my
country, Sweden, police are allowed to perform wiretapping
and electronic eavesdropping only by decision of a court,
and only when there is reason to believe the someone has
committed a crime with a penalty of at least two years in
prison. Could not the methods of catching criminals on the
Internet be protected by similar safeguards? Could not the
tracing and logging be protected by crypthographic
authorisation which only allows their use in proper ways?
This may be a difference in culture. Compared to my own
home country, Sweden, people in the U.S. seem to be very
paranoic in their view of public law enforcement. This
may be because public law enforcement agencies abuse their
privileges more in your country. Or it may be that people
in Sweden are so accustomed to government control that
they do not react?
--
Jacob Palme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/
