Should spoofing to be a part of cyber crime Law ?

In the 19th century Arthur Roberts (1852-1933) invented a game called Spoof, which involved trickery and nonsense. The first recorded reference to the game in 1884 refers to its revival. It was not long before the word spoof took on the general sense "nonsense, trickery," first recorded in 1889. The verb spoof is first recorded in 1889 as well, in the sense "to deceive." These senses are now less widely used than the noun sense a light parody or satirical imitation, first recorded in 1958, and the verb sense to satirize gently, first recorded in 1927.
According to wikipedia spoofing attack is “ a situation in which one person or program successfully masquerades as another by falsifying data and thereby gaining an illegitimate advantage.” Spoofing is just hide your identity when u do something. Spoofing occurs when an e-mail sender hijacks an unsuspecting victim's address by falsifying its routing information so it appears to come from the victim's account. When the message reaches its intended target, all reply messages go to the victim's address, not the actual sender Spoofing is may a cyber crime if it is harmful for some one .Spoofing may take place according to its types like sms spoofing, IP spoofing, ARP spoofing, DNS spoofing, web spoofing and mail spoofing.

Text/SMS Spoofs are sent by either e-mail or through a web site. The sender inputs your number and then inputs the number or name they want you to see on the caller ID. They then input their message and send. See Text/SMS Spoofing for more in depth data
URL Spoofing - When the address (A.K.A., domain name or URL) displayed in the address 'location' bar at the top of a browser is not really the web page being displayed it has been spoofed. For example the user may see www.citibank.com in the address location bar but really be on the web page www.iamgoingtorobyou.com
Web Spoofing is when the spoofer puts a computer between the internet user's machine and the entire internet thereby intercepting everything the internet user does.
To accomplish this a spoofer must first somehow get an internet user to visit the spoofers 'trap' web page. The spoofer could get an internet surfer to the 'trap' web page through a variety of tricks and techniques including but not limited to:
a link in a spam e-mail
through a hyper-link on a non-trap web page
even a link the internet surfer clicks on from a search engine.
Once the internet surfer visits the spoofers 'trap' web page every web page that the internet user visits thereafter is served from spoofers computer. The internet user sees the actual web pages that they are visiting but the spoofer is acting as a malicious intermediary ISP, spying on everything the internet user sees and types. This means that the spoofer can intercept all of the internet users ID's and passwords, credit card information, and anything else the web surfer types in to web pages they visit.
e-mail Spoofing is when a spoofer falsifies the information about whom an e-mail is from. Most spam (unsolicited e-mail) uses e-mail spoofing with the primary intent to trick the recipient into viewing the e-mail. A good example is the thousands of e-mail claiming to be from eBay that are really spam. The spammer usually does not spoof to hide their location. In fact the spammer will go to much greater lengths to hide their actual location using a variety of techniques- so that they can not be found. See e-mail Spoofing for more in depth data
IP Spoofing - (Internet Protocol Spoofing) - Data sent over the internet (such as an e-mail) is broken up and sent in small pieces of information called packets. These packets once received are reassembled by the recipient. Each packet contains information about who the packet is from and who the packet is to, among other data. Spoofers can falsify who the packet is from to trick the recipient. This type of spoofing is often used to gain access to machines which use IP authentication to verify identity. See IP Spoofing for more in depth data.
Online spoofs made just for fun may not necessarily face punishment, Yan Xiaohong, vice minister of the National Copyright Administration (NCA), said:If some online spoof made only for fun, and if all the people involved in the spoof do not mind, the spoof will not lead to punishment of the spoof makers, he said at a press conference on online piracy."But this does not mean we advocate online pranks," he said.“If the spoof was made without the permission of copyright owners or infringed the rights of others, the victims can sue the spoof makers," he said."The court will decide whether the spoof makers should be punished according to Chinese law," he said.Chinese Internet users aroused public interest in their online parodies in 2005 when a netizen named Hu Ge made an applause-winning short film spoofing Chinese director Chen Kaige's big-budget movie, The Promise.Director Zhang Yimou's blockbuster "Curse of the Golden Flower" has also been the butt of online parodies.
Spoofing should be a part of cyber crime if it is harmful for some one. Because a person using the identity of other one may miss use that identity. And after that he will definitely escape because he will totally anonymous for crime detectors. Through spoofing many illegal matters can take place.














References:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spoof
http://www.wiredsafety.org/law/spam/spoofing.html
http://www.youspoof.info/spoofingTypes.html
http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/239889.htm

Review of "Future of Ideas" by Lawrence Lessig

Lawrence Lessig in the first chapter “Free” from his book the Future of Ideas hands us a picture of the future we are “taking” without question or even deliberation, one which we might already have set our foot in. It is a future where limitations and restrictions would be put on the freedom of speech, expression, and even ideas; a future where the power of the Internet in enhancing this freedom of intellectual and even commercial resources is regulated to the point of eradication. The creativity that is produced through such freedom is facing a threat by the so-called Copyright Law. As an example, Lessig presents to us the simple process of including a small piece of artwork (or any concept in general) in a film is a decision that ultimately has to be made by the lawyers, not the director of the film, if the film needs to avoid any legal actions pertaining to Copyright. He tries to convince the reader of a blindness regarding “property” and a need to keep a control on the sharing of resources. He believes that this blindness will “undermine the potential of the Internet” and will prevent growth of innovation and hence innovative people (like authors or artists…).
Lessig says that media broadcasting isn’t constrained by the high costs of production or distribution anymore with the use of digital technology and the internet.Rather other constraints (technical and legal) are denting this process of free resource sharing. These constraints include intellectual property or government-granted exclusive rights and a one-way medium of sharing. The established corporations (governmental and private) who are employing these constraints are trying to impose restriction on the “borrowing” or “sharing” of resources, which they consider as a threat for the commercial (or political) scene set by those corporations.Considering these as “morally” wrong principles to follow, Lessig tries to indicate that corporations, more specifically media corporations should not view the receiver of their services as a “consumer”, a term which signifies a passive recipient of a one-way service. He believes that to enhance innovation, everyone needs to “individually and collectively participate in making something new”. For example, blog writers, digital artists, music mixers e.t.c on the internet play their part in the growth of internet by not just being consumers of the services, but by injecting their own creative developments on the sharing medium.The question that Lessig tries to establish in the mind of the readers is that are we right in saying that we are a “free society”. He talks about two systems for the allocation of resources in a society that are not free either by the government in a socialist society or by the market in a capitalist society. But the debate is not about the better of the two systems, but about which of the resources should be controlled by the system and which of them should be deemed “free”. By a ‘free resource’ in a society, Lessig means those resources which one can use without anyone’s permission or with a permission of a neutral authority if required. Only through the use of those free resources and have corporations established, masterpieces in music and art created, and significant scientific discoveries made. Hence creativity stems from the sharing of resources (ideas, expressions, and research e.t.c).The simple fact that Lessig explains to the readers about free resources is that all resources does not fit into the simple model of produce-and-sell (like roads and public parks for example). Also, not all resources in a society can be forced to be free, to prevent misuse of the resource or, more importantly, for their continued production and maintenance. Hence control and restrictions should be applied but only where necessary. Lessig says that the important thing is that we decide which resource should be control and which not, so as to ensure the progress of creativity and innovation