Slashdot Mirror

making claims against the "criminal"

I assume by your use of quotes that you don't think the guy committed a crime. You would do well to read the Computer Misuse Act (1980), and in particular Section 1 ("Unauthorized Access to Computer Material").

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/49

And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of land around the Strait of Dover...

The act contains no words that I could find pertaining to French territorial waters, nor Sealand explicitly.

The UK could of course just claim that this annexed the territories claimed by Sealand, but then that claim has no more merit than Sealand's claims... except for that it has a larger military backing it up.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/49

The relevant law is The Computer Misuse Act 1990 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents

5 Significant links with domestic jurisdiction.

(1)The following provisions of this section apply for the interpretation of section 4 above.

(2)In relation to an offence under section 1, either of the following is a significant link with domestic jurisdiction—
(a)that the accused was in the home country concerned at the time when he did the act which caused the computer to perform the function; or

[F1(b)that any computer containing any program or data to which the accused by doing that act secured or intended to secure unauthorised access, or enabled or intended to enable unauthorised access to be secured, was in the home country concerned at that time.]

(3)In relation to an offence under section 3, either of the following is a significant link with domestic jurisdiction—
(a)that the accused was in the home country concerned at the time when [F2he did the unauthorised act (or caused it to be done)] ; or
[F3(b)that the unauthorised act was done in relation to a computer in the home country concerned.]

possession of knowledge is not and should not be a crime.

Yes it is. Whether it should continue to be a crime or not is up to the government of the UK.

FTFY. Just like the US, the government does whatever the fuck it wants.

These corrupt 'terrorism' acts aren't even worth my contempt. And regardless of the fact that the American's 1st amendment is toothless, at least free speech is codified into law there

No, you're still wrong. Free speech in the UK. Codified into law..

With its slander and libel laws on top of the terrorism acts, the UK doesn't even come close.

Perhaps you are right about the common-law interpretation of libel. But there IS free speech in the UK, codified into law. It may be more free in the US, but it does exist in the UK.

This is a free speech issue.

No, this is NOT a free speech issue. Free speech is the freedom to speak freely without government interference. If this dweeb had been the publisher of the bomb-making instructions then you might have a point. But he is not. His freedom of speech has not been curtailed.

In the UK you are free to drink a beer in the street or a park. We consider this to be an essential method of self-expression. You are not free to do so in much of the US. Ergo there is no free speech in the US. An equally silly statement.

Being able to use information for nefarious purposes doesn't make it any less so. Yeah, he might be acquitted, but he has to go through hell to get there. Who's going to compensate him for lost time and money, eh? None of what I am saying means the government can't observe his actions, but gathering information is perfectly within his rights. It's time to put the dogs on a leash

You are of course familiar with the Detroit Sleeper Cell? Convicted of terrorism, to wit: recording a home movie at Disneyland. Convicted and acquitted on appeal. Not considered by anyone to ever have been a 'free speech issue'.

Oh well, gotta remember that the UK has no real free speech rights codified into law.. for what that's worth..

Please don't conflate a real shitty law with a fictitious old canard.

The UK has the Human Rights Act, of which article 10 guarantees free speech. Before this, rights to free speech were part of common law dating back centuries.

If you mean "the UK has no absolute free speech rights" you are correct. Try making threats against the President's life to see if you have absolute free speech rights.

But this case has nothing to do with free speech. He was convicted under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which proscribes "collect[ing] or mak[ing] a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Bullshit, of course (a tube map is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism), but not a free speech issue.

People convicted in similar cases have been acquitted on appeal where the prosecution cannot show that the defendant intended to commit a specific act of terrorism. Wannabe terrorists, IOW. Doubtless this goofball will be acquitted on appeal too, but that won't be so widely reported, and if it is, the government have an excuse to pass more draconian 'anti-terrorist' laws.

Don't miss the fact that this legislation predates 9/11.

Actually, if you had been paying attention to some of the brits here, possessing the knowledge is in fact illegal. Yay terrorism laws!

Indeed, Britain has banned all knowledge.

He was arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58
"58 Collection of information.
(1) A person commits an offence if —
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."

Regarding (a) is piloting a plane likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism? What about driving a truck? Or having a map, knowing chemistry or the alphabet?
As to (b), if someone were to receive "likely information" mingled with (buried in) newsletters, commercial/religious pamphlets, encyclopedias, would that someone always be found guilty or is there some room in the law for other interpretations? Point (1) seems to state that the offence is committed every time this happens.

Actually, if you had been paying attention to some of the brits here, possessing the knowledge is in fact illegal. Yay terrorism laws!

possession of knowledge is not and should not be a crime.

Yes it is. Whether it should continue to be a crime or not is up to the people of the UK.

So not road legal in the UK until we they change the law that prohibits "quitting" a vehicle with the engine running and, by extension, starting a cars engine by remote.

Leaving motor vehicles unattended

107.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall leave, or cause or permit to be left, on a road a motor vehicle which is not attended by a person licensed to drive it unless the engine is stopped and any parking brake with which the vehicle is required to be equipped is effectively set.

(2) The requirement specified in paragraph (1) as to the stopping of the engine shall not apply in respect of a vehicle—

(a) being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes; or

(b) in such a position and condition as not to be likely to endanger any person or property and engaged in an operation which requires its engine to be used to—

(i) drive machinery forming part of, or mounted on, the vehicle and used for purposes other than driving the vehicle; or

(ii) maintain the electrical power of the batteries of the vehicle at a level required for driving that machinery or apparatus.

(3) In this regulation “parking brake” means a brake fitted to a vehicle in accordance with requirement 16 or 18 in Schedule 3.

Don't even get them started (no pun intended) on a car that drives itself even over small distances with no-one inside, much less at the wheel.

I believe he was referring to RIPA (Wikipedia article)

It's only happened once in the UK before as well, and then (TV-Links), the case was dismissed. Despite the web being around for some time now, it seems that the issue of linking is only just reaching courts, and unsurprisingly, there will be a few odd rulings until it settles down and precedent is established.

In this case, the US was arguing that providing the website (even merely linking to stuff) was "communicating [copyrighted stuff] to the public", and was "in the course of a business" due to the money being made from adverts (contrary to Section 107 (2A) of the CDPA). The counter-argument was that (as in the TV-Links case) his actions were protected by the 'mere conduit' defence (established by Article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive) which protects ISPs, website hosts etc. from the actions of their users. However, in this ruling, the judge seems to have found that because O'Dwyr (the defendant) was in control of the site, and those adding the links had to be "vetted". Imho (as a mere observer, not a lawyer) that's a very narrow interpretation of the Directive, which might be grounds for a successful appeal.

If he does appeal, we might get a "definitive" ruling on the legality of linking, and the scope of the EC Directive defences, which could be very useful (or terrifying, if they go the other way), so in some ways this is a good thing.

Of course, if he gets to the US, he then may face a completely different trial under US law, where he will be able to argue facts, not just points of law...

Besides, I doubt the FOIA applies to the British government.

You're completely right: the American FOIA does not apply to the British government. But the British FOIA does! Isn't that incredible?

And one day they'll decide life isn't a right, and you aren't owed anything.

If Statutory Instruments are required to not *guarantee* but *grant* that right as an actionable civil legal mechanism, then the right to life is a commercial fiction with the burden of proof on the Claimant that *his* right to life supercedes commercial interests.

... and a new law in 2010 *excludes* members of the Church of Jediism in the UK from protection against racial discrimination and hatred.

No it doesn't. There is no such law. Wikipedia is wrong (I shall be editing that article in a minute).

The source for the wiki statement is a debate in a House of Commons Standing Committee which was scrutinising the bill. As a means to stir debate, an MP tabled an amendment defining religion by means of inclusive lists and exclusive lists. The two lists were likely to be incompatible. Jediists and Scientologists were mentioned in the exclusive list, not because the MP wished to exclude these groups from protection against religious hatred but because he wished to incite a debate about the definition of religion in the context of such a law. The amendment was not incorporated into the final Act, thus there is no law excluding Jediists from such protection.

The whole debate is a worthwhile read and can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/e/st050629/pm/50629s01.htm

The shedule of the Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/schedule

The issue isn't property or even copyright. The problem is data protection law. I don't know about Australia, but at least here in the UK the law is that a business/government body can't transfer personal data about individuals without going through a formal registration process and, in many cases, getting permission from the data subject. They clearly do not have that permission in this case, and are unlikely to have registered for the purpose, so they appear to have violated the law. If this were a UK case, they'd specifically have violated this provision:

55 (1) A person must not knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller—
(a)obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained in personal data, or
(b)procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data.

In the case of data on a lost USB memory stick, it would appear that "data controller" means the original owner of the memory stick.

Interestingly, this sort of thing was trialled in the UK by the BPI back in 2008 and it was abandoned quickly. It was completely ineffective, very expensive, and resulting in some bad press due to lots of false accusations. It did lead to some very profitable (at least in t A couple of years later they had it put into law, making it much easier and cheaper for them (ISPs didn't want to pay) but a couple of years on from that and implementing it is still some way away.

All this sort of scheme does is make money for lobbyists, monitoring companies and lawyers, at the expense of actual creators, ISPs and the general public.

I can't see anything in the act about that:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

It seems to just reiterate the 6 year maximum period for a claim against a product. Other than that the act just seems to be about setting limits for civil procedings relating to things like mortgages and such.

Searching for myself I managed to find this, which does mention 2 years:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31999L0044&model=guichett

But however this is interpreted for a UK consumer still relies on it's implementation under UK law, and as there's no mention of the 2 year limit in any UK legislation then it's of no benefit to UK consumers.

I did find this however, which potentially clears up the confusion:

http://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/wordpress/eu-2-year-guarantee-sales-of-goods-act-gives-us-6-years-to-claim-for-faulty-appliances/

Effectively it seems to be the case that as the UK's 6 year period exceeds the 2 year period then our law is actually superior and so we have no need to change existing legislation. The downside is the EU law doesn't seem to outlaw putting the burden onto the consumer after 6 months to prove it was faulty from the outset, and so that has remained part of UK law.

Still, if you can find anything to demonstrate otherwise I'd like to see it, I've no doubt it'll come in useful one day, but as it stands it seems to be business as usual with the 6 month rule.

Can you point to this in legislation? I believe the GP is right, everything I've seen in the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act seems to suggest 6 months statutory burden on the seller to prove user fault, and after 6 months on the buyer. Most companies if you push it wont ask you to prove you weren't at fault though because they know full well that you weren't and that in pushing it to that point could escalate their costs as they may then face small claims court costs, costs for time and money spent trying to get them to accept fault etc. too.

John Lewis isn't just accepting a legal minimum with their 2 years at all, they're just saying that they'll accept fault assuming there is no obvious evidence of user damage no questions asked and deal with the problem up to 2 years. It just gives you piece of mind that they wont try and shirk their obligations by trying to shift burden of proof of cause of fault onto you, which is something you don't have with the likes of Dixons group stores.

I had a look for the 2 year period you mention but can find absolutely no evidence of it in the acts themselves:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/43

Further, all of the consumer advice organisation seem to be agreeing with the 6 months, and again no mention of 2 years so I'm not sure where you dug up the 2 years figure from:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_goods_your_rights.htm

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/your-rights/

Six months doesn't sound great, but in practice it works well, I've had a leather office chair replaced outright by Staples after 2.5 years because the pump went on it because they knew it should last longer than that, and similarly my Dell laptop was replaced at 3 years and 1 month with a newer model because it was high end and should've lasted longer and they knew they couldn't just shirk it off as "out of warranty now". The maximum period for a claim is 6 years.

Can you point to this in legislation? I believe the GP is right, everything I've seen in the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act seems to suggest 6 months statutory burden on the seller to prove user fault, and after 6 months on the buyer. Most companies if you push it wont ask you to prove you weren't at fault though because they know full well that you weren't and that in pushing it to that point could escalate their costs as they may then face small claims court costs, costs for time and money spent trying to get them to accept fault etc. too.

John Lewis isn't just accepting a legal minimum with their 2 years at all, they're just saying that they'll accept fault assuming there is no obvious evidence of user damage no questions asked and deal with the problem up to 2 years. It just gives you piece of mind that they wont try and shirk their obligations by trying to shift burden of proof of cause of fault onto you, which is something you don't have with the likes of Dixons group stores.

I had a look for the 2 year period you mention but can find absolutely no evidence of it in the acts themselves:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/43

Further, all of the consumer advice organisation seem to be agreeing with the 6 months, and again no mention of 2 years so I'm not sure where you dug up the 2 years figure from:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_goods_your_rights.htm

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/your-rights/

Six months doesn't sound great, but in practice it works well, I've had a leather office chair replaced outright by Staples after 2.5 years because the pump went on it because they knew it should last longer than that, and similarly my Dell laptop was replaced at 3 years and 1 month with a newer model because it was high end and should've lasted longer and they knew they couldn't just shirk it off as "out of warranty now". The maximum period for a claim is 6 years.

I can't speak for everywhere in Europe, but in the UK it's illegal to do, say or post anything threatening, abusive or insulting if you're likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", and it's also illegal to use a "public electronic communications network" (i.e. phone or Internet) to send a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or do certain stuff online "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another." And yes, these laws do get used.

Of course, it should be harder to convict someone for offending a public figure like the Queen (or senior politicians) because Article 10 ECHR should get in the way, but that doesn't seem to stop the police barging into people's homes and threatening them with arrest...

I can't speak for everywhere in Europe, but in the UK it's illegal to do, say or post anything threatening, abusive or insulting if you're likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", and it's also illegal to use a "public electronic communications network" (i.e. phone or Internet) to send a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or do certain stuff online "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another." And yes, these laws do get used.

Of course, it should be harder to convict someone for offending a public figure like the Queen (or senior politicians) because Article 10 ECHR should get in the way, but that doesn't seem to stop the police barging into people's homes and threatening them with arrest...

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.

I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.

I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.

It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.

ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.

The UK's blasphemy law

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.

I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.

I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.

It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.

ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.

The UK's blasphemy law

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.

I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.

I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.

It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.

ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.

The UK's blasphemy law

A shame they can't do a detention without the parents knowing first, as they have to give them a 24 hour written notice.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/44/section/5

(3), (d)the pupil’s parent must have been given at least 24 hours’ notice in writing that the detention was due to take place.

But as for transportation home,

(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) whether a pupil’s detention is reasonable, the following matters in particular shall be taken into account— ....

(b)any special circumstances relevant to its imposition on the pupil which are known to the person imposing it (or of which he ought reasonably to be aware) including in particular— .....

(iv)where arrangements have to be made for him to travel from the school to his home, whether suitable alternative arrangements can reasonably be made by his parent.

Who decides what is 'hate-speech'?

The fucking law of the land decides, you utter moron.

They didn't just make up a law on he spot to convict this cuntbag troll, you know. He broke a real law, and yes, here in the socialist UK we don't have the right to do things like disrupt militay funerals by shouting abuse at the dead soldier's relatives. Sorry.

The law of the land is vague enough for you to serve six months in prison (if you get an unsympathetic judge on an off day) for posting your reply. Don't have a problem with that?

A court; that's why we have trials rather than summary punishment.

It's interesting that you should say that, as the offence he was apparently convicted for *is* a summary offence, so you can't get a full trial under it at first instance. These days the UK has quite a few summary offences and punishments (on-the-spot fines, ASBOs etc.); it's part of the "keep the plebs away from the higher courts" drive the last couple of governments have been running.

There is a clear defence at S.66 of the legislation in that showing that you were a participant and you (and others) were harmed beyond what you consented to. In principle, the person you shared the images with could be charged with possession and because they would not be a participant, S.66 would not apply; you, however, could not be charged, as you would be a participant.

However, as the offence requires the consent of the DPP in order to charge (which is code for "we've been forced to pass this law by public pressure, but you're out of your mind if you think we're going to use it more than we have to") it's highly unlikely that a scenario where you could produce the participants and have them testify that the acts were consensual would ever reach court, irrespective of whether the images were held by a participant or someone the participant had passed them to.

Of course, if the images portray acts that appear not to be consensual _and_ you can't produce evidence that they are, that's a problem for you, but that isn't the scenario you're outlining. However, "rough sex" wouldn't fall under the legislation at all, and nor would most BDSM. The legislation (op. cit.) and the CPS guidance make interesting reading.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

...or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?

Considering that he was a serial offender, and had received an official caution from the police in 2009 for a similar offence, it seems unlikely that he didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken.

If he'd done a similar thing by post, he'd still be going to prison.

This does depend on the country - in the US facts are not copyright-able so a collection of facts cannot have any copyright other than decorative or presentation features. In many EU countries facts are also not copyright-able but there are things called "database rights" (eg the UK's version) wherein a collection of facts cannot be derived from somebody else's collection of facts without permission.

For example, if you make a telephone directory by asking a bunch of people for their name and number then that is OK, but if you just scan and OCR the phone company's directory then that is not OK.

Much information on the internet relating to IP silently assumes that everywhere has laws similar to the US, which is not really the case.

In my opinion rape requires an intent to invade, control, and discomfort for sexual reasons

If one looks at the position under English law, for the offence of rape, there is no such requirement, with a person committing rape if:

• (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
• (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
• (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Penetration must be penile, though - not digital - so your view that the action here is not rape in fact, as opposed to as a figure of speech, is supported in England, at least.

However, the offence of "assault by penetration" would likely be committed - and, as you reason, that requires a sexual element.

In my opinion rape requires an intent to invade, control, and discomfort for sexual reasons

If one looks at the position under English law, for the offence of rape, there is no such requirement, with a person committing rape if:

• (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
• (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
• (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Penetration must be penile, though - not digital - so your view that the action here is not rape in fact, as opposed to as a figure of speech, is supported in England, at least.

However, the offence of "assault by penetration" would likely be committed - and, as you reason, that requires a sexual element.

Does he not have the freedom of assembly?

Yep, he has that. Although it can be restricted.

Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly?

Probably covered by the above.

What part of a water fight is not legal?

Well, it could be some sort of offence against the person (would certainly be battery, if there was no consent). Then you have all those lovely "breach of the peace" or "affray" things that the police love to (often incorrectly) apply when they want to round someone up. They could also go with s127 Communications Act 2003 (as with the Twitter Joke Trial) if they can show that calling for a water fight is "menacing".

Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?

Of course you can - planning, or conspiracy to do a crime is arrestable most places.

Times like this I wish I was a lawyer already....

No, but it is in the UK, where "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others," - and people wonder why the government doesn't like the Human Rights Act...

The UK has freedom of expression via the European Convention on Human Rights.

Encouraging people to commit crimes is an offense in the UK. It is not necessary that the crime being encouraged is ever successfully carried out (it is an 'inchoate' offense) so there is no need for the prosecution to make a link between the posting and a particular act of vandalism or robbery. See the relevant legislation for details.

"But if the encryption prevents things you're allowed to do (so, soon format shifting...?) then there must be a way round that."

Not really. Being "allowed" to do something does not mean you have a right to do so. This is also a common misconception regarding the US Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is not a right, but it is a defence you can use in a case against you.

I can't really add anything beyond just copying out the bit of the Wikipedia:

The new section 296ZE creates a remedy via complaint to the Secretary of State if a technical device or measure prevents a person or group of people from carrying out a permitted act with relation to the work. The Secretary of State may issue a direction to the owner of the copyright to take such measures as are necessary to enable the permitted act to be carried out. The breach of such a direction is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

and the relevant section of the act.

The law itself is far too confusing.

* DDoS is a crime in both the States and the UK, as is unauthorised access of a computer

Technically, DDoS isn't a crime in the UK - the offence that supposedly covers DDoS is the broader offence of "unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer etc." under s3 Computer Misuse Act 1990. I think the key word there is "unauthorised". While the recent Meltwater decision might say otherwise, it would seem odd if accessing websites was unauthorised by default, and there are some very interesting legal points in there.

Of course, we won't hear any of these legal points because the individuals won't be able to afford top lawyers, and will probably already have pleaded guilty; possibly to something they didn't actually do (as in some of the file-sharing cases). "Conspiracy to carry out a DDoS attack" sounds like either the journalists getting it wrong or the Police/courts making stuff up because they want more serious charges. However, the hacking stuff does fall under the CMA 1990, but has a maximum sentence of 2 years v the 10 years for the DDoS offence.

[For the record, Ianaly.]

That would be the Computer Misuse Act (1990), as amended by the Police and Justice Act (2006), section 36. I suspect he might well have been arrested on suspicion of committing offences under sections 1, 2, and 3.

That would be the Computer Misuse Act (1990), as amended by the Police and Justice Act (2006), section 36. I suspect he might well have been arrested on suspicion of committing offences under sections 1, 2, and 3.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents

Enjoy.

Unlikely to survive as a media mogul. Unable to survive as owner of said media. You know the normal usage as in : "Politican X is unlikely to survive sex with intern scandal".

The media is highly regulated in most places. If you are consider "unfit" then your company won't get approval to do things like takeovers (the BSkyB stuff for example). In fact in lost of places you can be deemed unfit to be on the board or be the CEO of such companies, in the UK for example has the Broadcasting Act of 1990:

"""
3)The Commission—

(a)shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and

(b)shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence;
""" - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/3

Do you really think News would keep Murdoch on if it meant losing their broadcasting licenses? Or would they ditch him an an emergency meeting after the threat was made. Note that "person" includes actual people as well persons corporate and unincorporate.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/79

Criminal liability of directors etc.
(1)Where an offence under any provision of this Act other than a provision of Part III is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of
—
(a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b)any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly

(2)Where an offence under any provision of this Act other than a provision of Part III
—
(a)is committed by a Scottish firm, and
(b)is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner of the firm,he (as well as the firm) shall be guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(3)In this section “director”, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.

... they already can.

(Legally compel you to reveal crypto keys or render the relevant information intelligible that is. Well, you could refuse, but that's an offence obviously. Section 49 of Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA)).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/49

Not just false statements in general. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/106.

If the person making the statement believed it was true and had reasonable grounds for doing so then they're fine. Phil Woolas got in trouble because emails showed he didn't believe what he was saying and had no grounds to.

Unfortunately not
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/regulation/13/made

Exceptions to the right to cancel
13.—(1) Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the consumer will not have the right to cancel the contract by giving notice of cancellation pursuant to regulation 10 in respect of contracts—

(d)for the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software if they are unsealed by the consumer;

Well that's just not true. None of it. That is not the way extradition works.

That due process must be followed is not true?
I refer you to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/70

First, the person has to be formally accused in the country who requests the extradition (in this case USA).
Then, the Secretary of State has to certify the request.
Then, a judge has to approve it.

I.e. FBI can't just tell UK police to go arrest someone.