This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C335EB.A0B29270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If Hatch's senile fantasy of attack software is actually carried = through, it will be a gift to the internet vandals who presently have to = make do with homemade viruses and worms. Imagine what they would do = with professionally developed malware; it would be like handing an Uzi = to a toddler. Once the attack program(s) were released into the wild, as it were, to = do their dirty work, it would only be natural for hackers (as opposed to = crackers) to reverse engineer them out of professional curiosity. And = soon enough vandals would get hold of them and pandemonium would ensue = on the internet. Imagine the lawsuits that the RIAA and others who = developed the software would have to defend themselves against then. = Talk about being hoist with one's own petard! Obviously the best defense for existing computers is to invest in = software which periodically makes full backups that can quickly restore = your hard drive to a known good earlier state. And, of course, to = support the development and use of alternative desktop operating systems = such as Linux, and other software such as the Mozilla browser, because = the attack software would most likely be developed with Windows in mind. = The more diversity the attack software has to deal with, the less = likely it would be to succeed in every case. If the RIAA has anything = to say about it, future computers will be designed with a self-destruct = which could be activated by software. Wouldn't that be fun. On Wednesday, "Robert Bushman" commented that: "Perhaps we should also start extending the "justifiable" laws. He jaywalked in front of my car, so I ran him over. Justifiable assault - he was breaking the law and obstructing my lawful progress down the motorway." It's already been done; in Phoenix last week some guy used his Hummer as = a weapon to run down and destroy a car with 3 people in it whom he = claimed had robbed him. He probably won't be charged with anything even = though he chased the car down, because the prosecutor knows he couldn't = get a conviction. -Christopher Bardin ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C335EB.A0B29270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If Hatch's senile fantasy of attack software is actually = carried=20 through, it will be a gift to the internet vandals who presently have to = make do=20 with homemade viruses and worms.  Imagine what they would do with=20 professionally developed malware; it would be like handing an Uzi = to a=20 toddler.

Once the attack program(s) were released into the wild, as = it were,=20 to do their dirty work, it would only be natural for hackers (as opposed = to=20 crackers) to reverse engineer them out of professional = curiosity.  And=20 soon enough vandals would get hold of them and pandemonium=20 would ensue on the internet.  Imagine the lawsuits that the = RIAA and=20 others who developed the software would have to defend themselves = against=20 then.  Talk about being hoist with one's own petard!

Obviously the best defense for existing computers is = to invest=20 in software which periodically makes full backups that can = quickly restore=20 your hard drive to a known good earlier state.  And, of course, to = support=20 the development and use of alternative desktop operating systems such as = Linux, and other software such as the Mozilla browser, because the = attack=20 software would most likely be developed with Windows in = mind. =20 The more diversity the attack software has to deal with, the less likely = it=20 would be to succeed in every case.  If the RIAA has anything to say = about=20 it, future computers will be designed with a self-destruct which could = be=20 activated by software.  Wouldn't that be fun.

On Wednesday, "Robert Bushman" commented that:

"Perhaps we should also start extending = the=20 "justifiable"
laws.  He jaywalked in front of my car, so I = ran
him=20 over.  Justifiable assault - he was breaking the
law and = obstructing=20 my lawful progress down the
motorway."

It's already been done; in Phoenix last week = some guy=20 used his Hummer as a weapon to run down and destroy a car with 3 people = in it=20 whom he claimed had robbed him.  He probably won't be charged with = anything=20 even though he chased the car down, because the prosecutor knows he = couldn't get=20 a conviction.

-Christopher Bardin

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C335EB.A0B29270--