What I find amazing is that the DOJ, isn't taking steps to change the law to explicitly allow private honeypots and other detection methods as a means to detect and prevent hacking.

Isn't the DOJ supposed to be working with the homeland security department to find cybercrimes?

A banner stating the machine is monitored is probably a good idea, another tack might be to pay for and place a small public notice in one of the local newspapers stating that you monitor all machines at domain xyz...

It also appears that in the simplest case, interception was defined as a hacker communicating with your honeypot -- then your viewing of the logfiles, separating the owner of the honeypot and the physical machine. Why isn't the same twisted logic applied to the return packets sent to the hackers PC? If they view the results of the packets, should not they considered a third party in the communication between your honeypot and the hackers PC? Bizarre!.

There are video camera?s at all ATM?s, on many buildings, lobbies, and most small food market stores. I don?t remember seeing signs posted warning that anybody coming within 30 feet might be recorded. The recording might include both voice and video of their mouth (lips) and other activities.

Nor, do I remember seeing on the back of any pro-sports ticket that a disclaimer that I might be displayed on national TV and my voice may be heard by third parties.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/4004/19462#19462