3) Is this worth it w/ just a DDOS attack? How similar is this to creating a TSA or DHS for electronics from 9/11 attack? There's already a ton of regulations that you couldn't even read in your lifetime (you spend a ton of time referring to other sections all over the place, like how laws are written, to deliberately confuse and waste time) for critical infrastructure, and tons of soft targets that remain untouched.
Those referred to prosecutors in the New York-based stinginclude a school administrator, a school janitor using a stolencomputer identity, a college student training to become akindergarten teacher, a pizza deliverer, and a used carsalesman. Some have already pleaded guilty. The probe alsolead to a Swiss couple who were arrested in Buffalo, New York,last month and accused of masterminding an internationalchild pornography manufacturing and distribution ring,according to the state attorney generals office.
Regulation of Child Pornography on the Internet - Cyber …
Or how about letting DDoS victims get liability leverage up the stream? Sure, the manufacturers are at the head of the stream, but the product purchaser is next down from there. We don't need to ruin their carreers and label them criminals, but how about disconnecting or throttling their internet until they turn the device off. This would obviously encourage the next step, of the product purchaser complaining to the product manufacturer.
European Commission - Competition
In its no-action letter to Lamp on May 29, 1997, the Commission staff took the position that Lamps procedure for furnishing information about private hedge funds to potential investors would not constitute a general solicitation. Lamp, which was in the business of operating Web sites, proposed to establish and administer a Web site containing information about certain private hedge funds. To access this information, a potential subscriber would be required to (1) complete a generic questionnaire that would permit Lamp to determine whether it was an accredited investor under Regulation D and a qualified eligible participant (an investor having a two million dollar investment portfolio, or QEP) under the Commodity Exchange Act, and (2) pay a monthly subscription fee. Once Lamp had determined that the subscriber was qualified and the subscriber had paid its fee, the subscriber would be given a password to access the fund information. Each subscriber was required to observe a waiting period before purchasing the securities of any fund to ensure that Lamps qualification of the subscriber would not be deemed a solicitation for a particular fund. One year later, in a subsequent no-action letter, the staff indicated that it would not object if Lamp eliminated the subscription fee and the QEP requirement, so long as it continued to require that investors be accredited within the meaning of Regulation D.
State aid Legislation > Block Exemption Regulations
The Commission acknowledges in the April 2000 Release that previous staff interpretations of what constitutes a pre-existing, substantive relationship have been limited almost exclusively to the broker-dealer context. The Commission also indicates that this is a fact-intensive inquiry and that there may be circumstances in which someone other than a registered broker-dealer could establish the existence of such a relationship. It encourages third-party Web site operators offering accreditation services to look to the Commission staff for assistance in resolving securities law issues raised by their services. Significantly, however, the Commission also states that its no-action letters to Lamp Technologies, Inc. (Lamp) should not be read as extending the pre-existing substantive relationship doctrine to third parties other than registered broker-dealers.