Should "SPOOFING" be part of Pakistan Cybercrime Bill

Before discussing our mentioned case, let's discuss what is spoofing.

SPOOFING:

Spoofing is a generic term covering a range of computer network attacks whereby the attacker attempts to forge or intercede in a chain of communication. It is an attempt to gain access to a system by posing as an authorized user. Synonymous with impersonating, masquerading or mimicking. [1]

Spoofing has a number of forms: email spoofing, IP spoofing and webpage spoofing.

Email Spoofing: E-mail spoofing is a technique normally used for spam e-mail and attempt to hide the source of an e-mail message.

IP Spoofing: IP (Internet Protocol) address spoofing means the creation of IP packets with a f spoofed source IP address with the purpose of hiding the identity of the sender or put its working to another computing system.[2]

Disadvantages Of Spoofing:

One disadvantage of spoofing is to initiate DOS attack on other's Computer, that computer that sender wants to spoof. When spoofed Computer recieve, it is not able to respond to requests from third Computer that it is requesting response. The TCP tags each datagram with a sequential number. If third Computer receives a packet that is out of sequence, it will discard the packet or hold, depending on how close the packet is to the number it is looking for. The hacker, using spoofer Computer , estimates the number that third Computer is looking for and pretends to be sending packets from spoofed Computer by using its Computer identification. Spoofed Computer is unable to stop this use of his identification because he is spending all of his time answering the false packets from another computer that the hacker has set up to send the packets.

Second disadvantage is that a ip spoofer may stole the important information of the orignal IP address holder and spoofer may harm the ip holder.

Similarly,e-mail spoofing can harm reciever by recieving that e-mail.

Advantage of Spoofing:

As e-mail spoofing can also be an advantage for sender and reciever such as spamming.The sender send e-mail for its product advertizement and reciever may need this product.So it is advantage of product seller and customer.

Similarly MAC spoofing is little bit helpful for the host,if a person's internet connection didn't works, it may spoof the mac address of its friend(that has internet access) and can also connect to the internet.

Cyber Crime Law Of Pakistan And Spoofing:

According to cyber crime law of Pakistan:

"Whoever establishes a website, or sends an electronic message with a counterfeit
source intended to be believed by the recipient or visitor or its electronic system to be an authentic source with intent to gain unauthorized access or obtain valuable information which later can be used for any unlawful purposes commits the offence of spooling. Whoever commits the offence of spooling specified shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."[3]

Should "SPOOFING" be part of Pakistan Cybercrime Bill:

From above observations, it can conclude that as spoofing is wrong method used in the internetworking society,spoofing can harm the spoofed computer,but it also has some advantages.So instead of stop the whole process government should put out the wrong

aspects of spoofing.This will harm the prosperity of internet society.So instead of giving much punishment,government has to become little softer in its cyber crime bill.

References:

1.www.google.com

2.www.wikipedia.com

3.prevention of the electronic crimes.pdf

Review on FUTURE OF IDEAS "FREE"

This article is about the ideas that are seen to be converted in the future. There are some examples and comments about the ideas' history & future.

Take an example of film director, in the process of making a film, a director must “clear rights.” A filmbased on a copyrighted novel must get the permission of the copyright. A song in the opening credits requires the permission of the artist performing the song. These are ordinary and reasonable limits on the creative process, made necessary by a system of copyright law.

But what about the stuff that appears in the film incidentally? Posters on a wall in which a can of Coke held by the “cigarette smoking man,” an advertisement on a truck in the background? These too are creative works. Does a director need permission to have these in his film?

But according to copyright law that smoking man can claim director that director use his art in the film so he has to pay for it. If any piece of artwork is recognizable by anybody . . . then you have to clear the rights of that and pay” to use the work. This means director can't use any kind of creativity that look in surrounding. So copyright impede creativity.
Similarly, there are also ideas used for stop the prosperity.Power runs with ideas that only the crazy would draw into doubt. In these times, the hardest task for social or political activists is to find a way to get people to wonder again about what we all believe is true. The challenge is to sow doubt. So instead of seeing that prosperity important aspect, society leave that prosperity work bindly.This blindness will harm the environment of innovation.

There are also old principled which create resistance to new prosrerity work. They are not happy of the change to be create in the future.Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is indifferent partly from fear and partly because they are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience.

So there are two futures in front of us, the one we are taking and the one we could have. The one we are taking is easy to describe. Take the Net, mix it with the fanciest TV, add a simple way to buy things, and that’s pretty much it. It is a future much like the present.So above are two constraints for future use.

This view of America Online (AOL), it is the most cynical image of Time Warner’s marriage to AOL: the forging of an estate of large-scale networks with power over users to an estate dedicated to almost perfect control over content. That content will not be “broadcast” to millions at the same time; it will be fed to users as users demand it, packaged in advertising precisely
tailored to the user. But the service will still be essentially one-way, and the freedom to feed back, to feed creativity to others, will be just about as constrained as it is today. These constraints are not the constraints of economics as it exists today—not the high costs of production or the extraordinarily high costs of distribution. These constraints instead will be burdens created by law—by intellectual property as well as other government-granted exclusive
rights. The promise of many-to-many communication that defined the early Internet will be replaced by a reality of many, many ways to buy things and many, many ways to select among what is offered. What gets offered will be just what fits within the current model of the concentrated systems of distribution: cable television on speed, addicting a much more manageable, malleable, and sellable public.

The future that we could have is much harder to describe. It is harder because the very premise of the Internet is that no one can predict how it will develop. The architects who crafted the first protocols of the Net had no sense of a world where grandparents would use computers to keep in touch with their grandkids. They had no idea of a technology where every song
imaginable is available within thirty seconds’ reach. The World Wide Web (WWW) was the fantasy of a few MIT computer scientists. The perpetual tracking of preferences that allows a computer in Washington State to suggest an artist I might like because of a book I just purchased was an idea that no one had made famous before the Internet made it real.

Skip ahead to just a few years in front of 2001 and think about the potential for creativity then. Digital technology has radically reduced the cost of digital creations. As we will see more clearly below, the cost of filmmaking is a fraction of what it was just a decade ago. The same is true for the production of music or any digital art. Using what we might call a “music processor,” students in a high school music class can compose symphonies that are played back to the composer. Imagine the cost of that just ten years ago (both to educate the composer about how to write music and to hire the equipment to play it back). Digital tools dramatically change the horizon of
opportunity for those who could create something new. And not just for those who would create something “totally new,” if such an idea is even possible. Think about the ads from Apple Computer urging that “consumers” do more than simply consume:
Rip, mix, burn,
Apple instructs.
After all, it’s your music.
Apple, of course, wants to sell computers. Yet its ad touches an ideal that runs very deep in our history. For the technology that they (and of course others) sell could enable this generation to do with our culture what generations have done from the very beginning of human society: to take what is our culture; to “rip” it—meaning to copy it; to “mix” it—meaning to reform it however the user wants; and finally, and most important, to “burn” it—to publish it in a way that others can see and hear.9 Digital technology could enable an extraordinary range of ordinary people to become part of a creative process. To move from the life of a “consumer” (just think about what that word means—passive, couch potato, fed) of music—and not just music, but film, and art, and commerce—to a life where one can individually and collectively participate in making something new.
Now obviously, in some form, this ability predates digital technology. Rap music is a genre that is built upon “ripping” (and, relatedly, “sampling”) the music of others, mixing that music with lyrics or other music, and then burning that remixing onto records or tapes that get sold to others.10 Jazz was no different a generation before. Music in particular, but not just music, has always been about using what went before in a way that empowers creators to do something new.