As an expat living in the Netherlands I am outraged by the proposed Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act introduced last week by Congressman H.L. Berman. Perhaps even more disturbing is that the immediate recourse appears to be through monetary means.
This uncovers the ugly truth about how the American system works; less than 200 thousand dollars is apparently enough to shrink the brain of said congressman to the size of a pea. Why should it take $5 million, or for that matter any amount of financing to oppose this legislation? Apparently it still takes good old greenbacks to win in a democracy.
There are plenty of unanswered questions about the feasability and fairness of the proposed legislation and here's the kicker, if this type of legislation is passed, and copyright holders start nuking computers under the 'safe harbour' of this legislation, how can they assure it will only hit pc's that fall directly under US governance?
Surely any virus, or other 'seek and destroy' code that invades foreign networks and pc's can and probably will be seen as an act of war against the sovereignty of nations outside the US.
The Netherlands in fact, was a temporary safe harbour for KaZaA, which ultimately succumbed to stateside legal action. Releasing destuctive computer code is a whole different ball of wax in my view of the world and as long as there is no European legislation on the matter, which would have to go through Brussels to be affected in the European Union, there better not be any US Government crap rooting around on my harddrive[s].
With decentralized networks and the adhoc topology they create and re-create, it is impossible to target US based pc's exclusively.
The FBI Defines terorism as: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." I believe a destructive virus constitues use of force.
May I suggest there is another course of actioned that should be examined. The second amendment of the constitution provides for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The 'right to bear arms' has always been associated with gun-powder based firearms. Dictionary.com defines of 'arms' as: "1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. "
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers meant arms in the broadest sense of the word, which is why the dictionary includes nuclear weapons, Intercontinental ballistic cruise missles and the like. Logically one can also include cyber-weapons, such as email-bombs and other destructive computer code.
Is the right to bear arms not also intended to protect citizens from its own government if the need arises? I fully believe this was part of the deal. Wow, imagine the NRA standing up for the right to bear cyber-arms!
Ofcourse I'm not an attorney, but hope further analysis will arise from these suggestions.
As a side note I would like to point out that any computer code of such viral destructive nature will likely target windows based pc's first, foremost and perhaps exclusively. Another reason to switch to a Mac.
2:04:46 PM 
|
