Dedicated to my Mom; the most judgmental person I know. Copyright © 2000. All Rights Reserved.
The Judge is the Smartest Lawyer in the Courtroom; Just Ask Her
I am still amazed at how seriously some judges take themselves. There must be something about a robe that can make a person believe they are cloaked with wisdom. For example, Beverly McLachlin, Canada's newly-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has predicted a big rise in the Internet crime cases that will come before the court. Who hasn't predicted that? I would be more interested in hearing what new legal issues will confront the court because of these cases. Maybe the point is that no one really knows into what territory the Internet is leading us, and that is why courts and governments worldwide cannot discern how much, if at all, Internet regulation is or should be the business of courts and government.
Government Is Anything You Can Get Away With Without a Revolution
Pentagon to Recruit Hackers, Clinton Declares War on "Cyberterrorists," and the Chinese Require Government Registration for Internet Users.
U.S. Air Force General, Richard Myers, the next Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently in a Pentagon briefing that cyber tactics should be in every commander's arsenal. Myers said “keystroke” attacks would limit both U.S. casualties and harm to a target nation's population. Among the policy issues: the potential blurring of the line between military and civilian targets. And how blurred they could become!
President Clinton wants $2 billion from Congress to fight "cyberterrorists" with an ROTC-like plan that sounds to me like a 21st Century version of the School of the Americas dictator training.
To expand research into computer security, Clinton wants taxpayers to fund a new "Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection," to train private sector computer scientists and engineers. Students would receive government-subsidized training in exchange for a stint of government service.
"Cyberterrorist" hype, if it is hype, seems like government hyperlinking towards totalitarianism. What is a "cyberterrorist," anyway? (And, is it defamation to be called one?). If we're not careful, a "cyberterrorist" could end up being any wrongminded person who speaks openly online against a rightminded person, and a "hacker" could be someone who programs something offensive to those with authority.
What's to stop covert government-driven "keystroke attacks" on U.S. civilians believed to be operating against "national security," or against foreign civilians thought to be jeapordizing U.S. interests? More and more we are starting to look like some other very scary governements.
Chinese Court Upholds Hacker's Death Sentence Without these soulless lunatics, the free people in the world might not have a good negative role model. Last December a Chinese court upheld the death sentence for a man who hacked into the computer system of a state bank to steal money. I know it's a bit Islamic, but amputating a hacker's fingers would be a better punishment that actually fits the crime.
Chinese Gestapo: Shanghai police have ordered corporate Internet users to register, so they can control the Web. Shanghai's Public Security Bureau has ordered companies using the Internet to register with police by January 30. Companies failing to register could face fines of up to 50,000 yuan ($6,000). I wonder if China might be considering blocking web sites it considers immoral or politically incorrect. Perhaps the Chinese read the reports about President Clinton's declaration of war on "cyberterrorism." Or, was it the other way around?
My Favorite Felon
President Clinton's Poster Child for the War on Cyberterrorism. So far a
Russian hacker takes credit for the largest known Internet credit card scam.
An 18-year-old nicknamed "Maxus" claims to have stolen thousands of credit
card numbers from an online store and offered them to credit card crooks from
his web site. I was a stupid kid, and sometimes an even more stupid adult,
but I just can't grasp how a kid this smart could be so dumb.
I saw this colloquy recently in n "Hide-Your-Assets" discussion group:
Q: A client is expecting a $1 million judgment against her in the next six
months. She owns 98% of a limited partnership that has $400,000 in it.
The general partner is a corporation that she is a minority shareholder
in.
This is the only asset that the creditor will probably go after.
1) Does the creditor have any remedy other than a charging order? Has a
limited partnership ever been pierced?
2) She is thinking of locating in a state that has a very strong homestead
law. Can the partnership loan her money to buy a house in this state
and
will it provide protection?
A: May I suggest the revolutionary concept that your client actually takes
some
responsibility and pays her debts. Or would this be too much to ask?
[Add Comment]
| [List Comments]
| [Back]