lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:28:47 -0400 From: "Eliah Kagan" <degeneracypressure@...il.com> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [inbox] Re: Supporters urge halt to, hacker's, extradition to US Michael Krymson wrote: > I just wanted to let you know I know a tiny bit how the American system > works (I live here). "Beyond reasonable doubt" is typically a murder trial > thing. That is incorrect. You, again, appear to misunderstand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means. Beyond reasonable doubt is the strongest burden of proof in a court, and in the United States it applies to virtually all crimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt > But reasonable doubt in general is typical when interpreting and > applying laws. It seems your misunderstanding is elucidated. "Reasonable doubt" is not a synonym of "critical thinking" or "skepticism". It has a specific legal meaning, and that is the meaning that I have been using. > It's just when one uses that "beyond reasonable doubt" that > it evokes murdermurdermurder thoughts. Are you referring to the way that the phrase is commonly used in works of dramatic fiction? If so, I would preemptively argue that the language of our legal system need not be molded to fit the conceptions people happen to have from popular culture. But I will go further. Compromise the standard of evidence and argument, and that will contribute to a systemic degradation increasing the number of wrongly convicted murder suspects (and thus also wrongly uncharged murderers). So while a case of computer fraud may appear to be unrelated to murder, in actuality precedents set in a computer fraud case will inform future rulings on all types of criminal cases, including murder cases. > What a reasonable person believs is a > lot different than saying there is no doubt about something. Yeah, it sure is. For instance, I agree that a reasonable person (familiar with both computer security and doors) would understand your analogy about locked doors. But that doesn't eliminate all doubts a reasonable person would have about it. Therefore, if the analogy were presented in court as arguments, your argument would have to be judged as insufficient. > In one case > you're trying to prove guilt as much as possible, in the other you're just > trying to apply common sense. Are you saying that it should be OK to convict someone of any crime besides murder so long as it makes sense that they could have done it, given the available evidence? > I'd stick by my saying entertain a blank password is like testing a door and > finding it unlocked, or that is accepts my key that I just happened to have > in my pocket. Just because it works does not imply I'm welcome. I would say > that a reasonable person would understand that. What I have presented in my earlier post is a semitechnical argument that there are other reasonable analogies that are inconsistent with yours. Therefore, any conclusion arrived at by assuming the singular validity of your analogy is suspect and a reasonable person would doubt it. Anyway, the truth is that even if we do arrive at a generally sufficient analogy between access to electronic systems and access to physical spaces, that will still not be enough, because a computer crime isn't usually an unauthorized access to physical space. Computer fraud is *not* breaking and entering, destroying electronic systems without damaging physical hardware is *not* vandalism, copyright violation is not (and has very little to do with) larceny, and so forth. (Similarly we don't put CEO's of companies that violate emissions regulations on the sex offenders registries for "raping the planet".) Crimes like computer fraud are real, serious crimes that really hurt people, but that doesn't automatically validate a literal interpretation of whatever analogies happen to be popular! There are specific laws covering computer crimes. The laws governing who can enter what buildings under what conditions may or may not correspond to what these laws actually say, under any analogy. -Eliah _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists