> I think you're getting way ahead of the conversation, and there is no way to know what the implementation would be like and how communication would go between researchers and companies because if you can think of the communication problem today, then we can consider a solution for that problem in the implementation tomorrow.

A major problem is that communicating with a large bureaucracy, even to just find a way to contact someone inside of it who will know what you're talking about, is a significant time commitment. So you're not going to do it just because you think you might see something, and as soon as you add that requirement it's already over.

You might try to require corporations to have a published security contact, but large conglomerates, especially the incompetent ones, are going to implement this badly. In many cases the only effective way to get their attention is to embarrass them in public by publishing the vulnerability.

> You (and others) propose we make hacking into systems fully legal, presumably because we can target malicious activity based on what they do with that access instead of the access itself. Is that correct?

So one of the existing problems is that it's not always even obvious what is and isn't authorized. Clearly if you forget your password to your own PC but you can find a way to hack into it, it should be legal for you to do this and recover your data. What if the same thing happens, but it's your own VM on AWS? What if it's your webmail account, and all you use it for is to recover your own account? You made an API call with a vulnerability that allows you to change your password without providing the old one, but you are authorized to change your own password.

There are many vulnerabilities that result from wrong permissions. You to go the service and ask for some other customer's account page and instead of prompting for a login or coming back with "401 UNAUTHORIZED" their server says "200 OK" and gives you the data. Is that "unauthorized access"? What do you even use to determine whether you're supposed to have access, if their server says that you do?

This kind of ambiguity is poisonous in a law, so the best way to resolve it is to remove it. Punish malicious activity rather than trying to subjectively evaluate ambiguous authorization. It doesn't matter whether their server said "200 OK" if you're using the data to commit identity theft, because identity theft is independently illegal. Whereas if you don't actually do anything bad (i.e. violation of some other law), what need is there to punish it?

> I also disagree that a ban is equivalent to shooting an intruder. The connection is not the actor, the person using it is.

The justification for being able to shoot an intruder is not to punish them, it's self-defense. Guess what happens if you tie them up first and then shoot them.

You don't need to physically destroy someone to defend yourself when all they're doing is transferring data. All you have to do is block their connections.

> If we formally adopt this attitude then we also enable ourselves to pressure other jurisdictions to raise their standards to match.

The reason other jurisdictions don't punish this isn't that no one is setting a positive example. It's that their governments have no resources for enforcement or are corrupt and themselves profiting from the criminal activity whose victims are outside of their constituency.

Or if you're talking about the jurisdictions who do the same thing as the US does now, it's because their corporations don't like to be embarrassed either, and we could just as well set the example that the best way to avoid being humbled is to improve your security practices.

> I think the first place to start is making a clear legal relationship between security researchers and the private sector and debate the laws that should be in place to facilitate that in a fair way

Companies will want to try to retain the ability to threaten researchers who embarrass them so they can maintain control over the narrative. But that isn't a legitimate interest and impairs their own security in order to save face. So they should lose.

The embarrassment itself is a valuable incentive for companies to get it right from the start and avoid the PR hit. Nothing should allow them to be less embarrassed by poor security practices and if anything cocksure nerds attempting to break into public systems for the sole purpose of humiliating major organizations should be promoted and subsidized in the interest of national security. (It's funny because it's true.)

> An uncontrolled internet appareny has 1 outcome - malicious spam. That is what everyone in this thread seems to agree on, and the arguments against what I suggest all seem start with the assumption "there is nothing we can do about it" and the corollary "there is nothing we need to do about it"

It's not that there is nothing we can do about it. It's that imposing criminal penalties on the spammers isn't going to work if they're on another continent, and correspondingly isn't a productive thing to do whenever it has countervailing costs of any significance at all.

You can still use technical measures. Email from an old domain with a long history of not sending spam and all the right DNS records, probably isn't spam. Copies of near-identical but never before seen messages to a thousand email addresses from a new domain, probably spam.

You can also retaliate in various ways, like stealing back the cryptocurrency they scammed out of people by using your own exploits.

What you can't do is prevent Nigerians from running scams from Nigeria by punishing innocuous impudence in the United States.

And one of the best things we can do is improve the security of our own systems, so they can't be exploited by malicious actors we have no effective means to punish. Which the existing laws are misaligned with, because improving security is more important than imposing penalties.

I'm much reminded of the NTSB approach to plane crashes: It's more important to have the full cooperation of everyone involved so you can identify the cause and prevent it from happening again, than to cause everyone to shut up and lawyer up so they can avoid potential liability.