[LINK] Free Radicals on the Internet WAS: Fwd: Auto-discard
russell at ashdown.net.au
Wed Jun 2 15:51:11 EST 2004
On 2 Jun 2004 at 13:46, Antony Barry wrote:
> From: Jason Mumbulla on behalf of David Vaile
> <rsvp at bakercyberlawcentre.org>
> Date: 1 June 2004 5:00:08 PM
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: [Invite] Free Radicals on the Internet - hackers,
> spammers, spoofers and virus authors - Tuesday 8 June 2004
> Dear Linkers,
> Would you mind bringing it to the attention of those off the list you
> think would be interested?
> Title: Free Radicals on the Internet - hackers, spammers, spoofers and
> virus authors
> Date: Tuesday 8 June 2004
> Time: 1:00 to 2:00 pm
> Venue: Room 1042, Law Faculty, UNSW Library Tower Stage 2
> See: David Vaile
> Phone: (02) 9385 3589
> Free Radicals in chemistry are "free-roaming compounds that bond
> with trouble." Free Radicals in cyberspace are characters - such as
> hackers, spammers, spoofers, virus authors - who do likewise (i.e.,
> roam freely, are legally immune, and bond with trouble).
> This LawTechTalk at UNSW Law looks at these agents, and suggests a
> theory that would impose liability on individuals who encourage Free
> Radicals or facilitate their mischief. We examine implications for
> potentially hazardous acts such as publicising dangerous security
> vulnerabilities in widely-used software systems.
Enough! If the vulnerabilities are prohibited from being published,
how can they ever be fixed? This sounds to me as if "LawTechTalk at
UNSW Law" is pandering to the likes of software vendors who want the
vulnerabilities of their software covered up as a part of their
"secure software" marketing exercise. Better to take the approach of
making software vendors who do not properly fix known broken code
liable at law for the losses of their clients. Only then will the
holes in popular software be seriously addressed. Perhaps
"LawTechTalk at UNSW Law" could look into the liability of
homeowners, who, because they have installed glass in the windows of
their houses should be held culpable when their house is broken into -
because the burglar could see the items inside through the glass.
Then the police wouldn't have to waste their time looking for the
burglar, they could just arrest the victim and be done with it.
(Poor analogy, I know. but I am pressed for time, and you get the
point.). The reason I have written this in one single long paragraph
is so the Lawyers can understand it. I couldn't bring myself to
remove the punctuation though ;).
More information about the Link