<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I don't have time to respond in detail,
but glad to see people thinking.<br>
<br>
There is a third problem: Attacking the DNS (by LEOs) not only
creates collateral damage; it's rarely effective. Approving an
ineffective action may look good on TV, but it does not stop the
crime. The internet community can't just sit back and complain;
the LEOs, judiciary (and legislators) need solutions and
education. It's not their fault that they use the only tool that
they know about (and have legal precedent for). The community
(technical and political) needs to engage.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
</pre>
On 08-Jul-14 12:49, Sam Lanfranco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53BC2105.7000304@yorku.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Timothe Litt's comments "hit the nail
on the head" with his first sentence in which he writes:<br>
<br>
On 08/07/2014 12:02 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53BC1613.3010909@acm.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">If you read the comments, you'll
note that they didn't even get the 'take-over' right.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Forget for a moment the contentious issue of whether or not this
was the right way to attach the problem. Clearly it was not. BUT,
and this is a very big but, when the case for "doing something
quick" is typically put before the judicial system, the judicial
system only has (hopefully it has) the capacity to determine if
the "something", both grounds and proposed solution, are warranted
under the law. What the judicial system does not have is the
capacity to assess the ability of the petitioner (police?,
MicroSoft?, who is legit here?) to do the something correctly,
with the intended effect, and without unintended collateral
damage. <br>
<br>
This is not a small problem. It is a big problem. Suppose the
police thought there was an illegal marijuana "grow op" in your
neighborhood, based on electricity load data, and the courts gave
them permission to selectively turn off the power to every
abnormal user. They may interrupt the grow op, but they may also
turn off medical devices and the like. <br>
<br>
There are two big problems here. The first it what should be
subject to judicial authorization. The second is what criteria (or
credentials) are used to determine who has the proper capacity to
act. In a criminal case if the courts give permission to search a
premises they don't give that permission to the postal deliver
person, or the lawn care company, it goes to the police.<br>
<br>
There are two problems here. <br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>