Slashdot Mirror
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."
Providing advice to a Hacker == criminal offense? Doesn't legal counsel count as advice? Isn't that protected under the 5th ammendment?
I am !amused.
All it takes is one bad customer relationship to cause a false accusation...
jeremiah cornelius
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't know much about how this bill would be interpreted were it to come to law, but it seems to me that making security bugs known to the general public could be construed as giving advice to a hacker since, well, it alerts the general public to security problems.
who are the victims?
stop and think.
if someone commits credit card fraud with said stolen numbers, then we know who the victim is. but we already have a law for that. until some other crime is committed, there was no victim of simply stealing the numbers.
just because a computer was used to commit the crime, it doesn't mean the crime is somehow worse than the same thing done without a computer. theft is theft, and should be treated as such. it's not like we have separate murder laws for guns vs knives...
This act and the DMCA are eerily similar. Both seek to address particular historical circumstances and events (e.g. Napster, terrorist attacks). Both sets of circumstances are genuinely complex and problematic. And, in both cases, there were already perfectly adequate laws more general laws which address the particular situation. We already have laws to address copyright violation, and we already have laws to convict violent criminals, spies, and yes...even hackers.
The DMCA and all these supposedly anti-terrorist laws, past and present, take a terribly backward approach to lawmaking. The best laws, like the best software, succeed on minimality and generality. Witness the excellent US constitution, which has been extremely effective considering how long it's been around. The constitution uses very broad terms -- "life", "property", "punishment", "vote" -- and very few specific terms. (Some parts are quite specific, like the quartering of soldiers bit. They seem very quaint now.)
Laws, like software, tend to break if they are designed in specificity but used in generality. The trouble with these new laws is that they create all kinds of special cases and extra circumstances designed for a particular moment in history, which we'll have to support for decades or even centuries. The new terrorist laws, in a way, are like the 640k RAM limit -- they seem good enough for now, but in the future, they'll cripple and break all kinds of things.
The difference is, in this case, it is our fundamental freedoms that are being to get crippled and broken. As always, please please please call your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. They are under a lot of pressure right now, and they need to hear from sensible people.
Computer crime should be a crime.
But it already *is* a crime. The question is what is a just response to computer crimes. Some things which are *not* just:
- Sentencing someone to lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole for a simple computer crime. Remember, if the crime really warranted such a sentence--for example, cracking air traffic control and causing planes to crash into each other; cracking a CIA computer and stealing national secrets--then the criminal would already be liable for serious punishment under existing laws--murder and espionage, in these cases.
- Retroactively eliminating the statute of limitations, allowing people to now be charged with computer "crimes" they committed decades ago.
What's even worse is the provision that giving advice or information which may be used to facilitate computer crimes is not only criminalized but subject to the same penalties.To put it another way, if this law passes then someone could be given life in prison without parole for documenting vulnerabilities which allow systems to be compromised by a cracker or a worm. Indeed, it isn't clear that, with the removal of the statute of limitations, they couldn't charge the people documented the vulnerabilities responsible for eg. Code Red or Nimda under this law.
This provision is like the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA writ large. Whereas at least the DMCA only applies to access-control restrictions on copyrighted material, this law could potentially make all discussion of any vulnerabilities which allow systems or information to be compromised illegal.
These provisions are so utterly preposterous and out of proportion to the crimes (or so-called crimes) discussed as to boggle the mind.
How about growing marijuana?
That is an excellent example of a victimless "crime" that numerous goodhearted American people are rotting in jail for right now.
Ashcroft's new proposals, though, go far beyond making computer-crime 'crime'. It already is. What he's doing is making it terrorism. People could be jailed for life for the electronic equivilent of graffitti.
"I don't believe that our definition of terrorism is so broad," said Ashcroft. "It is broad enough to include things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."
The irony is that he wants to fight assaults designed to change the purpose of government by changing laws in direct response to a terrorist attack.
The long-term damage from the terror attacks will come from our leaders as they exploit public rage to slip new crap like this into federal law.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
No, it isn't.
From the bill:
"(19) `protected computer' has the meaning set forth in section 1030
"(20) `computer trespasser' means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer.";
From Title 18 Chapter 47 Sec. 1030:
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the
United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not
exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial
institution or the United States Government and the conduct
constituting the offense affects that use by or for the
financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or
communication;
Used in interstate or foreing communication? How many of you connect to machines and/or through machines without crossing state lines?
Further from the bill:
""SS 25. Federal terrorism offense defined
"As used in this title, the term `Federal terrorism offense' means a violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to violate-
-snip-
1030(a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), or (a)(7) (relating to protection of computers)
-snip-
Okay, so now *maliciously* breaking into basically any computer system is a terrorist act. Couple this with the rest of the increases in anti-terroism this bill contains, and you're doing *LIFE* in FEDERAL PRISON (aka "no parole") because your Anti-CodeRed Perl script took down some dipshit's enterprise server. Meanwhile child molestors get time off for good behavior.
I don't think anyone thinks "computer crime" shouldn't be punished. Just not to this ridiculous degree.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
I propose a new Constitutional amendment. The Three-Constitutional Strikes And You're Out amendment. If an elected official votes for three laws that are later found unconstitutional (no statue of limitation, applied retroactively), they are kicked out of office and barred from all government work for life. These people are supposed to know what they are doing and have no fucking excuse for voting for unconstitutional laws.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I assume you know that *all* flight training is currently banned in the USA? Yes, that's right. If you are a flying instructor, currently *you cannot* train students.
Well, you won't go to jail. But the FAA will take your pilot's license away. If you are a pilot, that's nasty. Check out news://rec.aviation.pilots for more.
Without passing a law, without recourse to a *single* elected person, thousands of US citizens have had their source of income removed.
Well, that makes us all safe doesn't it?
Constitutionality will be questioned and laws like these, along with the careers of the idiots who propose them, will go the way of the dodo.
If we're lucky, the laws will go that way. I sincerely doubt that the careers of the idiots will, though.
What we need in the US is a law that punishes those who pass blatantly unconstitutional laws. Of course, since Congress routinely exempts themselves from legislation, they'd exempt themselves from this, too!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
- it will be a long war
- it will be a secretive war
- the U.S. government will not necessarily reveal evidence against the terrorists they uncover.
- the U.S. government expects all other governments to comply and assist with its anti-terrorist actions.
now make hacking terrorism.now make assisting hacking terrorism.
now make hacking crimes retroactively punishable.
i've read bugtraq for years and have not informed the FBI about all the vulnerabilities released on that mailing list - will this make me negligent and punishable? will my punishment come in the form of an official court prosecution, or will special forces be sent in to take me out without ever letting anyone else know? if i move to Norway, will Norway allow the Navy SEALS to seize me?
Beware, that unmarked white van may be coming for you.
Yeah, sure, very paranoid to think that way, but consider history and consider how other police states have started their lives: will we be naive enough to let this one start as well?
-f
www.blackant.net