digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

ND Judge rules that "host -l" command constitutes hacking

downloadsquad.com — A North Dakota judge issued a ruling in Sierra Corporate Design v. Ritz that has some pretty stunning implications about the use of the "host -l" command when accessing DNS records. In the judgment (which was prepared by the plaintiff's counsel and sent to the judge), the use of the "host -l" command is tantamount to computer hijacking and hacking

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 18, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

153 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • SanjayM, on 01/18/2008, -3/+248Are you ***** serious? This is why people who know ***** all about the tubes should not be allowed to make legal judgment about them.
  • Philluminati, on 01/18/2008, -1/+158If it's illegal to access DNS records then I guess we can't use URL's. We'll have to go back to IP addresses. Also, I guess email is off limits as well now. If it's not illegal to access DNS services then how exactly does "host -l" warrant hacking? This is really retarded.
  • Spr0k3t, on 01/18/2008, -0/+104Next on the list is NMAP: Criminal Intent
  • PhantomRogue, on 01/18/2008, -3/+79Well, it IS North Dakota. Im not sure if they have more than 1 tube in the state.
  • fractalman, on 01/18/2008, -2/+75This is how hemp became illegal.
  • Philluminati, on 01/18/2008, -2/+72If host -l is illegal then so are all web browsers, ftp applications, web servers, email.

    The ***** point of DNS is to allow you to see what's on the ***** network!
  • shifty2, on 01/18/2008, -5/+65This is not as bad as the judge who said that information stored in RAM can be counted as evidence and he actually wanted it to be presented... this even after he was told that once the server was shut off or the memory was displaced by the OS it is no longer available.

    oh, how such ignorance adds to the buffoonary of life
  • z0mbie2099, on 01/18/2008, -5/+59These Judges know little or nothing about technology. Has someone jackass explain it to them in a half as manner and thus we have their idiotic laws.
  • leetleo, on 01/18/2008, -1/+48This type of ignorance is startling.
    I understand that not everyone is tech savvy, but I'd expect a state judge to have the foresight to know when he LITERALLY DOESN'T KNOW WTF HE'S TALKING ABOUT!
  • solarsavior, on 01/18/2008, -1/+46Reminds me of the time I got busted for looking up the telephone number of a company in the yellow pages...
  • Leathersoup, on 01/18/2008, -1/+42tracert = cyber stalking
  • VintageMud, on 01/18/2008, -2/+43There really needs to be a separate court system to deal with computer/tech related issues with judges/juries that are knowledgable about the specific issues being discussed.

    There are family courts, small claims courts, criminal courts, etc., so why can't there being a Tech Court?
  • supermanred, on 01/18/2008, -2/+39...and it's attached to a beer funnel.

    CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG!
  • BOFH139, on 01/18/2008, -0/+32You must start 5ms away from the host at all times.....
  • exomni, on 01/18/2008, -0/+30The Executive - a big ***** joke
    The Legislative - the executive's bitch
    and now, The Judicial - incompetent dumbasses
  • Salviati, on 01/18/2008, -1/+30If looking up DNS information is illegal, then I guess so is using a phone book. They do basically the same thing, convert a recognizable name to the appropriate contact number (IP address).
  • Woecip, on 01/18/2008, -4/+33I broke the law 20 times today.

  • jcaino, on 01/18/2008, -2/+30oh man, im going to be breaking the law a lot at work today. seriously - i probably use the host command about 50 or 60 times a day.
  • bugzer, on 01/18/2008, -2/+28The tubes! they scare me!
  • kuroaisu, on 01/18/2008, -2/+27They'll pry "dig" from my cold, dead fingers. Doesn't anyone brief judges on tech at all? Shouldn't someone?
  • SuperVepr308, on 01/18/2008, -2/+26Mr. Jones, you have been charged with the act of felonious pinging. How do you plead?

    Guilty your honor. I'm guilty.
  • h4mx0r, on 01/18/2008, -1/+22hmm, soon the very computer itself will be illegal to use.
    COMPUTERS CAN BE USED FOR MALICIOUS PURPOSES.
  • Tangaroa, on 01/18/2008, -0/+19Informative links:

    http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351
    http://www.circleid.com/posts/811611_david_ritz_co ...
    http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002533.ph ...
    http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=469
    http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/
    http://jamroll.net/support/about21835.html
  • Panda200x, on 01/18/2008, -2/+20I got arrested for using ping.
  • Zippo, on 01/18/2008, -0/+17Isn't this why we have experts and advisors?
  • CalipsoII, on 01/18/2008, -0/+17tcpdump == cyber voyeurism
  • Khast, on 01/18/2008, -2/+17These are the kinds of people who think that when you are in a command prompt, you are hacking, or doing something illegal. ...naw couldn't be good, because it looks too much like the 80s hacker movies...
    These are also the kinds of people who isolate their machines from the network, and feel that isn't enough, because computer viruses (virii) can travel through the air. (Paranoid teacher I had in the 90s)
  • fatdog789, on 01/18/2008, -7/+21... TFA is inaccurate, and is based off of summations of the judge's opinion.
    THE JUDGE ONLY RULED THAT THIS WAS HACKING IN THE SITUATION OF A DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED A COURT ORDER TO STOP HARASSING AND VANDALIZING THE PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS.
    The Def did this. Plaintiff said the Def was violating his court order by doing this. The judge agreed.
  • breetai1977, on 01/18/2008, -0/+14Actually the judge said in the opinion, that the 'host -l' command is used mainly for troubleshooting DNS servers, using it would constitute "hacking" only if it's use was unauthorized. He further stated that authorized use would be limited to the administrator or anyone assisting the admin in troubleshooting the server with the admin's permission.
  • supermanred, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16 Someone should find out if the judge is on the internet, and if so if his computer automatically uses the host -l function and charge him.

    Isn't that code built into all web browsers somehow, then again im not sure and wont be making any judgment on these cases since I know ***** all about it...
  • protogenxl, on 01/18/2008, -5/+19EFF GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR!
  • allatti2d, on 01/18/2008, -0/+11Okay, done...

    As someone not in the computer or tech industry, I did not know what this was about, although the response of tech diggers here alarmed me (since I have a law background).

    Here's what it boils down to for me:
    "For the uninitiated, when using the "host -l" command on a DNS server, the user will receive a list (hence the "l") of all information pertaining to the domain's zone file, assuming it has not been protected. ...ultimately it is the administrators responsibility to make sure that the information released under host lookup is information they want to be open to the public." (FTA)

    To me, this says Case Closed, and the defense attorney(s) should have used this argument. Obviously the plaintiff in this case didn't keep his information private, when he should have.

    I hope this case gets appealed by a smart defense attorney who knows about this stuff.
  • Xopl, on 01/18/2008, -1/+12Put your money where your mouth is:

    https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=D ...

    I do $10/month.
  • Dipster, on 01/18/2008, -0/+11Does this mean using 411 should also be illegal?
  • film_girl, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10Part of the problem in this case was that the defendant was found in contempt of court for violating an injunction (and injunction issued AFTER the suit was filed - so it's not as bad as it sounds) and bought the plaintiff's BS argument, failing to actually grasp the technology. So sad.
  • IphtashuFitz, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11Anybody know some DNS servers physically located in North Dakota? I'd love to do a few transfers, print them out, and send them to the judge.
  • chsbrgr, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8Halp! Mah tubes are be'n host -l'd!
  • billessig, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8"Believe it or not, the cops and the courts don't fall for these idiotic, juvenile Semantic games that you guys love to play."

    They have and do. I was just in court yesterday.
  • MinorLemming, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8ATTN Fatdog... Do you have a vested interest in this case? I only ask because of the number of times you posted the same comment.

    I fully understand why the judge ruled the way he did... And I STILL think he's an idiot. If I have a restraining order against me that stops me interfering or harassing someone, that does NOT stop me looking up their information, especially not if that information is being offered for public consumption (i.e. published).

    Also, the concerning part of the ruling is where the judge states that this consumption of publically published information constitutes hacking. Had he just said that the defendant was violating the restraining order, no-one would be talking about this. But he didn't. He said that host -l was hacking.
  • Herostratus, on 01/18/2008, -2/+9Watch out, after this they will put a carbon tax on breathing, we will walk through metal detectors to exit our homes and mercury in the form of thimerosol will be deemed healthy for all. Oh yeah and any use of the internet will be classified under the category of thoughtcrime.
  • fatdog789, on 01/18/2008, -5/+12Don't RTFA. It's inaccurate. READ THE ORIGINAL ***** OPINION.
    Then judge the judge. You'll discover *why* he ruled the way he did.
  • flaterates, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7Idiot judges and idiot legislators making uninformed decisions.
  • Stemp, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7Is this Judge the brother of Tuttle's city manager ?
  • Nougat, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8And unfortunately, no one who does know anything about technology will ever be in a position of power in the US. Why? Because tech people can get a lot more money and fulfillment from doing tech than being politicians, lawyers, judges.

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, get elected.
  • sexybobo, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7"THE JUDGE ONLY RULED THAT THIS WAS HACKING"
    It doesn't matter the situation using the host -l command is not malicious and you are not accessing there machines with our authorizations because host -l is a public item.
  • inactive, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7Dugg so the public awareness of how idiotic that judge is stays high.
  • FKnight, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6"I hope this case gets appealed by a smart defense attorney who knows about this stuff."
    From what I can tell, all they need to do is get it appealed by a smart defense attorney who has a PULSE. The one he had was obviously an idiot for not getting a qualified expert. Not the judge's fault though. I put this all on the defense attorney.
  • Cayfox, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Does that mean using the Yellow Pages is now tantamount to phreaking?
  • mossblaser, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7It is especially ammusing how they also decided that illigal use of computer software constituted hacking...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker
  • linagee, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Mr. Gates, you have been charged with making crappy software and bundling it with every computer. How do you plead?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.