Last week we talked about some concerns about how the various provisions cyber allow those affected by hackers to "reduce" or, as some call it, participate in a " active defense. " There were serious concerns about it, but as mentioned briefly in Marvin Ammori favorite post last week, Deputy Louis Gohmert seems not only remember piracy is a good idea

insert the video above does not work, I created a brief statement that barely covers ~ 5 minutes, the change involving Gohmert.

Here is the transcript base. The craziest part is where Gohmert said he did not care, as long as the cut is back "destroy hacker."

Rep. Gohmert

: I understand that in 18 USC 1030 constitutes a violation of the criminal law to some thing to help take control of another computer, even for a moment. Is this good?

Orin Kerr :. "Take Control" It depends on what you mean exactly if the takeover "" includes access to the computer, assuming your network is not supposed to take over, then yes, it should be prohibited by law.



Rep. Gohmert : For example, I realized that there was a recent example where someone was inserted malware on your own computer, so that when your computer has been hacked and downloading data, took malicious hackers for years, so that, when activated, allows the person whose computer has been hacked to get a picture of the person looking at the screen. Thus, the person who had made the piracy, and really damage all data on the computer. Now, some of us might think "it's amazing that helps you get the bad guys." But my opinion is that since he left momentarily take your computer hacked and destroy computer information and see who has used this computer, then indeed it would be in violation of 18 USC 1030.

So I wonder if one of the possible solutions to help us change or 18 USC 1030 to make an exception to if a malicious program or software that allows someone to take charge of a team gains control of the computer hacker who is not a violation . It may to be what we do for the crime of aggression, you have a self-defense. If this is part of a protection system of self-defense, it would be a defense that you have violated 1030. Does anyone see a problem with helping people amend the Criminal Code to allow such exceptions or suggestions in this regard?



Orin Kerr Mr. Gohmert, this is a great question that is hotly debated in the media of computer security. because, from what I heard, there much of this "hacking back" as they refer to it. however, at least under current law, it is illegal to do this in particular .... The real difficulty lies in the details. Under what circumstances can you counterhack someone counterhack width are allowed, how far can they go? The difficulty, I think, is that once you open that door, as a matter of law, that is something that can be difficult to take a shower. So I think if there is such an exception should be very close to avoid becoming the type of exception that swallows the rule.

Rep. Gohmert



Well, I'm not sure I care if a hacker destroyed

. Whenever pirate stop there. Would you say we have to pay for protection against pirates who do not hurt so bad?

Find best price for : --Kerr----Orin----CFAA----Gohmert--