Powerful Senator Endorses Destroying Computers of Illegal Downloaders (Orrin Hatch)

AP ^ | 6/17/03 | Ted Bridis

[freeeee]

There are two and only two possibilities here:

1. Hatch wants the government to destroy downloader's computers. Of course there won't be anything resembling due process, so we have a blatant and egregious 5th Amendment violation. But then that kind of thing never really bothered Hatch.

2. Hatch wants music companies to destroy computers. And that's blatant vigilantism.

[Myrddin]

The current vintage of high speed processors comes on motherboards with "jumperless" configuration. You can diddle with the clock speeds and voltages to the CPU via software. If you set the voltage to a value higher than the CPU can tolerate, you could destroy it. A low level format of the hard disk before initiating the CPU destruction with overvoltage would pretty well torch the machine. At the minimum you would need to replace the CPU and reload all the data to your hard disk. A less damaging action might be to erase the FLASH BIOS on the motherboard. It doesn't take much code to do that.

[randog]

The very most that could happen is that the hard drive could be wiped.

I was thinking along the lines of erasing the BIOS. You're truly hosed at that point.

[MD_Willington_1976]

You could build a universal bios flash utility and name it music.mp3.exe....click and ...hey whats with the blank creen on reboot?

[Jhoffa_]

This is a truly stupid statement. What a jackass.

It get's worse.. Just look a little more deeply into it.

Now, personally.. I could care less about file downloaders losing their PC's.. But think about this.

If you build a "self destruct" into the hardware, for the software manufacturers to trip when you download an illegal song.. Just imagine what hackers will be doing with it inside of 15 minutes.

Someone in the chatroom pissed you off? Nuke their computer!

I hate downloading, but this is a ridiculous idea. Hatch is a certified idiot.

He's a disgrace on so many levels it's impossible to find a word that describes it all accurately..

[randog]

GMTA!

[rs79bm]

Normally I like Hatch, but he fell off the cliff on this one. So, let's say for example you have a friend who likes to come over and downloads songs onto your computer. You happen to be a the president of a company, and you store gigabytes worth of company data on your computer. Under Hatch's theory, this is fair game for total destruction?

[Jhoffa_]

This is a truly stupid statement. What a jackass.

It get's worse.. Just look a little more deeply into it.

Now, personally.. I could care less about file downloaders losing their PC's.. But think about this.

If you build a "self destruct" into the hardware, for the software manufacturers to trip when you download an illegal song.. Just imagine what hackers will be doing with it inside of 15 minutes.

Someone in the chatroom pissed you off? Nuke their computer!

I hate downloading, but this is a ridiculous idea. Hatch is a certified idiot.

He's a disgrace on so many levels it's impossible to find a word that describes it all accurately..

[freedom moose]

Just wait until they destroy a computer and the owner takes them to court to PROVE the copyright violation. If the computer is destroyed, there may not be evidence to prove the violation.
but in that situation it would be hard to prove how the machine was destroyed too though, wouldn't it?

hatch is looney

[Jhoffa_]

Sorry for the double post.. Call waiting is making an absolute mess of my internet connection..

[Don Corleone]

FOLLOW THE MONEY

[NCLaw441]

It works for me. If you don't want to lose your computer, obey the law.

[rs79bm]

I would love to know how one goes about remotely "destroying a computer". Are they going to send a super-high voltage charge along the power lines directly into someone's home?

Hatch, of all people, being the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ought to know better. My god can you imagine the lawsuits?

[JustAnAmerican]

I am starting to realize with each passing day that what a lot of folks are saying is true. The line between Dim and Republican is becoming blurred.

[Myrddin]

The monitor is a relatively easy attack. I'm not sure you want the computer destruction to cause a house fire as well. The old Heath H-8 uses a CPU based refresh of the front panel LEDs. A very high current/short pulse width was used to allow a rapid refresh scan. If you turned on all the segments and selected a single display element, you could cook the 7-segment display right off the PC board...if it didn't explode from overheating first.

[Charles Martel]

Just wait until they destroy a computer and the owner takes them to court to PROVE the copyright violation.

IIRC, the "Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act" that was being kicked around last year would prevent the music industry from suffering any legal woes incurred by zapping an offending computer.

You can bet that the RIAA wants a substantial litigation shield. If they actually get something like that passed and begin demolishing computers with impunity, they can expect cyber-reprisals. I'll bet that the anti-music industry brigade is made up of smarter computer geeks than the ones working for the RIAA, too.

To quote the late Bonn Scott (if that's still legal): "If you want blood... you got it."

[freeeee]

obey the law

The 5th Amendment is a law (for government) so government can't do this (deprivation of property without due process)

Vigilantism is against the law, so corporations can't do it either.

I guess some laws are better than others.

[OpusatFR]

What about due process. This sounds like summary execution.

[NCLaw441]

Your choice, violate or not. And without your working computer, how would YOU prove the "government" did it?

[Question_Assumptions]

Next up? Replacing red light cameras with computer controlled gattling guns to take the car away from the person running the red light.

Old Orrin may want to read the bit in the Constitution about depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process.