SHOULD SPOOFING BE A PART OF Cyber Crime Bill

DEFINATION A
In the context of network security, a spoofing attack is a situation in which one person or program successfully masquerades as another by falsifying data and thereby gaining an illegitimate advantage.[Wikipedia.com]
DEFINATION B
It also includes the meanings that one uses such an URL that has very resemble ness with one other’s .thus if user has by mistake wrote wrong spellings of required URL ,he may open new one
EXAMPLE OF DEFINATION A
An example of first definition is the man-in-the-middle attack, in which an attacker spoofs Alice into believing they're Bob, and spoofs Bob into believing they're Alice, thus gaining access to all messages in both directions without the trouble of any effort or error. The attacker here must monitor the packets sent from Alice to Bob and then guess the sequence number of the packets. Then the attacker knocks out Alice with a SYN attack and injects his own packets, claiming to have the address of Alice. Alice's firewall can defend against some spoof attacks when it has been configured with knowledge of all the IP addresses connected to each of its interfaces. It can then detect a spoofed packet if it arrives at an interface that is not known to be connected to the IP address.
EXAMPLE OF DEFINATION B
By the second definition question arises that if some one is using resembled IP then whether he is a criminal or not? As this new URL is anyhow a new URL and what is the problem in using this one?
Like
http://www.google.com/
http://www.geogle.com/
for an example If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in Lahore, then tell you to read the letter, that's not security. That's obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their combinations so that you and the world's best safecrackers can study the locking mechanism -and you still can't open the safe and read the letter - that's security.

"google" is different from geogle and has it's own information in it which is not changed by "geogle". Geogle shares it's own thinkings ,news etc The answer is quite debatable topic and one cannot be just punished for three years like is done in Pakistan’s Cyber Crime Bill as
"whoever commits the offence of spooling specified shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"

review of "code is law"chapt-1

In spring 1989 communism in Europe eventually died .it was seined not by war but by politics
Writer says ,that had been a constitutionalist and was teaching in university of Chicago and had a very tough time those days as Chicago was devoted as center for studying emerging of new coming democracies.
Similarly central Europe was having people that were appointed to satisfy the bundles of questions being asked by outer world Communists and reporters. But their main mission was to watch transactions of people’s thoughts. This era was pathetic.
It would be handled by time not by government laws but I am sorry to say this also could not happen as a result many people were killed on United States streets and many old institutions were broken down.
Only a decade ago a new society was created by some liberals, students and universities it was liberal society. Any one could say any thing that he wants, it was the INTERNET. like an example see this


But this political regime also took control of it also very insulting manner.
I personally always tried to say my students and people to be liberal. in my teaching respect of laws is also taught .They often ask why cyberspace is having unlearned prohibitions for that I had no answer ever. Laws are made to facilitate, to prevent ones personal, national identity not to over take it
The concept of the dialectic has been around for a long time. It is simply that of opposite positions: Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position). In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue. For example, if my thesis is 2 + 2 = 4, then all other answers (antithesis) are false. George W.F. Hegel, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept upside down by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis. All things are now relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere. Instead, “truth” is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis. This is the heart and soul of the consensus process.
Socialist/communist public officials were been forcing mind-bending techniques upon local ‘s controls like police, and training the rookies for a militarized communist replacement for our former law enforcement system. This book will deal with the point of liberty and with ones that wants not this.
Copy rights took creativity as Who can sue, and the remedies, remain pretty much the same. However, conversion damages will be abolished; delivery up of equipment will be restricted to infringers in possession or control knowing or having reason to believe infringing copies were to be made with such equipment. In relation to infringers in possession of infringing copies or equipment, copyright owners will henceforth be restricted to a time limit of six years in which to make their applications. In addition, copyright owners will be able to ask the court to order infringing copies to be destroyed, rather than delivered up to them or their own use. New and clearer powers will also be given to enable civil courts to authorise seizure of infringing copies and equipment, so long as force is not used, the local police station is notified, and a notice is left on the premises - not, however, in relation to business premises.
On page 6 is written that our code will do it. we can built or architect. Greatest blunder here is that promesis of every thing are made but little steps are under taken