Hackers are 'Terrorists' Under Ashcroft's New Act

Carlos writes "Most computer crimes are considered acts of terrorism under John Ashcroft's proposed 'Anti-Terrorism Act,' according to this story on SecurityFocus. The Act would abolish the statute of limitations for computer crime, retroactively, force convicted hackers to give the government DNA samples for a special federal database, and increase the maximum sentence for computer intrusion to life in prison. Harboring or providing advice to a hacker would be terrorism as well. This is on top of the expanded surveillance powers already reported on. The bill could be passed as early as this week. I feel safer already."

Comments

My DNA?

[Papa Legba]

Why in the world would they need DNA. I am pretty sure that no where in the specs for DNS or IPv4 is it required that my genome sequence be part of the string being sent out.

So, who wants to take bets that the RIAA get's copyright violaters termed as hackers?

perversion

[nodrip]

This is a perversion of what Ashcroft requested. Hackers who attempt to disrupt key systems that are vital to protecting human life, for example the FAA's radar systems, are terrorists. And they are.

Re:perversion

[Tackhead]

> This is a perversion of what Ashcroft requested. Hackers who attempt to disrupt key systems that are vital to protecting human life, for example the FAA's radar systems, are terrorists. And they are.

On that, we agree.

Upon reading the draft bill, I'm not happy with all of the provisions in the bill, but I really don't see anything that says "guy with programming sk1llz == terrorist."

I do see an expansion of The List Of Bad Things We Can Do To Felons (such as DNA sampling), but that's a far cry from "all [cr]ackers are terrorists", let alone "all Hackers are now terrorists and will have to give up DNA samples".

Indeed, only crackers who attack "protected systems" (meaning .gov and .mil boxen - not the d00d who hax0rz the average web site) appear to be in line to get their asses handed to them on a silver platter under this Act, and those provisions I can support. (Hell, those are about the only provisions I'd support ;-)

Earlier, I made a post that said "If you've got programming skills, get the hell outa here." I retract that post. This bill, while odious for many means, is not a declaration that American doesn't want its programmers anymore.

Serves me right for replying to /. before reading the fscking article ;-)

Re:perversion

[Jerf]

but this law doesn't effect me, because i don't hack into financial or government computers. Hell I don't hack any computers.

Excuse me, but you are quite likely to be wrong. Was your computer, or any computer in your possession, infected with Code Red or Nimda? If so, and if it scanned any computers outside of your state, then it's not really a stretch to say that you were outside of the law.

OK, so as a Slashdot reader, you are less likely to be affected by the above. But how many of your friends were?

Also, this bill will eliminate the statute of limitations on these crimes and allow retroactive prosecution. Therefore, anybody who got Code Red or Nimda can quite plausibly be put in jail for life.

Would they win on defense? Maybe, but they're in jail until the trial is over. And maybe they won't win on defense...

This law hands the power to imprison damn near anyone running Windows IIS over the US government, such that only a lawsuit (inevitably protracted) would get them out.

Who still believes this is about preventing terrorism? What a sick joke! Frankly, I think those proposing this bill are traitors to the United States.

Re:Somebody has to say it, but...

[DeadMeat (TM)]

Stab somebody with a knife and kill them, and odds are you'll spend 20 years in jail, tops. Maybe more if you use a gun, or stab somebody famous, but as any U.S. citizen can tell you, even life sentences for violent crimes rarely live up to their name.

Break into their computer, and you're instantly labelled a terrorist. Think there's any chance you'll get much less than the maximum penalty of life? Hell, my high school once informally accused me of piracy (which, incidentally, I was not guilty of) just on the basis that I knew enough and therefore could have done it. If there's anything that makes people paranoid, it's hearing that the Big Bad Hacker is right outside their computer's door.

Fair, no?

Re:Umm, Thats not right...

[Tackhead]

> Providing advice to a Hacker == criminal offense?

"If you have programming skills, get the fuck out of the States and take your skills with you. Your country obviously doesn't want you anymore."

(Am I now a felon?)

So murder is less of an offense than hacking?

[Ingenium13]

Basically, if this were to be passed, it would tell the public that cracking/hacking is considered to be worse than murder. They even go so far as to say that giving advice to a cracker/hacker can yield life in prison! Is it just me, or is something seriously wrong here? I could go off and murder somone and receive less of a punishment than someone who defaced a website, resulting in a few hours of repairs by the administrator and the fixing of a securty hole. I'm sorry, but that's just not right.

Re:Here's the story.

[ncc74656]

As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today

This can't be the case...haven't the people who thought this up run across this passage before?

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

- United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3

You can't prosecute an action that wasn't a crime at the time the action occurred. Then again, with the body blows the Constitution has taken in recent times (mainly in various parts of the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments), maybe the drafters of this legislation haven't run across this passage before.

Sure, but what can we do?

[Rimbo]

Democracy is not a spectator sport. We have to get involved. Who do we write to? Who do we call? Who can we contact to see that this doesn't stand?

This is nothing new...

[Hacker Cracker]

It's nothing more than the same old reactionary garbage legislation that's been coming down the pike. And it's not surprising that this is what congress has come up with either--after all, if it didn't work last year, then do more of it next year...

As David Quinn put it quite eloquently:

When the Israelites escaped from Egypt in the 13th century B.C., they were literally a lawless horde, because they'd left the Egyptian list of prohibitions behind. They needed their own list of prohibitions, which God provided--the famous ten. But of course ten didn't do it. Hundreds more followed, but they didn't do it either.

No number has ever done it for us. Not a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand. Even millions don't do it, and so every single year we pay our legislators to come up with more. But no matter how many prohibitions we come up with, they never do the trick, because no prohibited behavior has ever been eliminated by passing a law against it. Every time someone is sent to prison or executed, this is said to be "sending a message" to miscreants, but for some strange reason the message never arrives, year after year, generation after generation, century after century.

Naturally, we consider this to be a very advanced system.

Quite depressing, really. (The whole text can be found here, BTW)

But what can you expect when the whole world has bought into the idea that there is absolutely nothing that any one person can do to change things?

-- Shamus

Bleah!

Re:Somebody has to say it, but...

[biglig2]

I read an interesting statistic the other day, in the UK there's about £270,000,000 of credit-card fraud a year, of which only £7,000,000 happens without someone physically presenting a card in a shop - i.e. that 7 mil includes not just all the internet fraud but all the stuff on the telephone as well.

Of course this is all well known. Best way to hack into a network? Get a job there as a Janitor and find a computer that wasn't logged out of.

Anyhow, criminal Laws can be divided into two categories, I've always though:
Laws that prohibit things that are bad.
Laws that might make it easier to enforce the former laws.

So, killing people is bad, so it's illegal.
Owning a gun isn't bad, but making that illegal is believed to make it easier to enforce the killing people law.

Copyright theft is bad. Being able to back-up an acrobat document isn't bad, and in Russia is actually a right, but DCMA is supposed ot mkae it easier to enforce the "no stealing copyright materials" law.