Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hackers are 'Terrorists' Under Ashcroft's New Act

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the it's-in-the-name-of-freedom-we-swear dept.

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."

7 of 1,021 comments (clear)

  1. Somebody has to say it, but... by mikeage · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Hackers aren't criminals. Crackers are. Seriously-- why _shouldn't_ computer crime be crime?

    --
    -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    1. Re:Somebody has to say it, but... by BlackSol · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Agreed. Whole heartedly if the person knowingly and purposely accesses/trespasses on a computer system.

      What may also help with the virus propagation is to issue tickets, equivlent to speeding tickets to those propogating (unknowingly, knowingly would be a crime) a virus. ie: 2 days of propogation = $500 fine + 2 points off your sysadmin license or something like that...

      --
      $sig=$1 if($brain =~ /idea\s+(.*)/i);
    2. Re:Somebody has to say it, but... by Water+Paradox · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Because hackers know who crackers are, but attorney generals think they're both the same, that's why.

      --
      information is immaterial
  2. Now hang on just a sec... by w3woody · · Score: 4, Redundant

    I don't mind increase survelance powers in order to fight terrorism. However, scrawling "I love you Crystal" or some such on some web page is not terrorism.

    This thing needs to at least be tempered by a clause which adds or defines criminal intent. That is, if hacking is done with the intent to destroy or disable the United States government and/or make actual acts of terrorism (such as blowing people up) easier, then throw the bastards in jail. But defacing some web site doesn't harm the United States government; it's just annoying as hell. And annoying doesn't deserve life in prison without the possibility of parole--especially since actually killing someone is what I would consider slightly more annoying, yet many types of murder don't get anywhere near life.

  3. The answer is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Don't write viruses.

    Don't write worms.

    Don't use known cracking tools and 'sploits.

    Don't tell people how to take advantage of vulnerabilities, with the intent of helping others cause harm.

    Don't break the law, and you'll have nothing to worry about. You had nothing to worry about before if you didn't break the law. Is it really that hard to do?

  4. Did terrorist actually use anything hightech? by Tachys · · Score: 2, Redundant

    I just want to know as anyone found any evidence of terrorists using anything "high tech" for WTC?

    The highest tech I have heard of is using email at Kinko's.

  5. AGAIN: Ben Franklin by nycdewd · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Benjamin Franklin said it BEST (I paraphrase here): he who would relinquish some of his liberties in the name of protecting freedom deserves NEITHER. And, NEVER think that "it can't happen here"... are you so naive as to believe that one morning Jews in Germany woke up to find their country changed completely? What happened in Germany did NOT happen overnight.