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."
How can anyone say this is a bad thing?
Victimless? Are you kidding? If someone cracks into a big ass server and steals credit cards, I think I know who the victims are.
Just because they're geeks doesn't make them any less criminal.
--
Arrgh!! Screw my karma! Stop the damned civil rights whining! Any crime is bad! That includes computer crime! The DMCA may be evil, but while it is law you must obey it! Why is it that every slashdot poster is some sort of liberal hippy freak?
This space intentionally left blank.
No. Microsoft already made a patch for it before Code Red hit. But assuming Code Red is terroristic, wouldn't the users who got infected by it be sent to jail for harboring terrorist activities?
The really spooky bit is that _helping_ a "terrorist" commit a computer crime is considered an act of terrorism.
step 1: discover and publish a security hole w/ sample exploit code.
step 2: watch in dismay as unpatched boxes are rooted and abused months afterward.
step 3: get on with your life for some arbitrarily long period of time.
step 4: annoy some suitably influential politician.
step 5: rot in prison for the terrorist act you committed years before.
I'm tempted to suggest Canada, but they're working on their own DMCA and would probably cheerfully extradite "terrorists" anyway.
This article is a big lie. Kevin Poulsen (the article's author) obviously didn't read the ATA or listen to Ashcroft's press confrence before writing this article. Either that or he's intentionally lying to get attention (which /. certainly gave him).
I heard part of Ashcroft's press confrence and he explicitly said that only certain types of hackers would qualify as terrorists. His favorite example of a terrorist was a hacker that attacked the power grid. He intentionally avoided calling other hackers terrorists.
This really goes to show that you can't trust what you read on the Internet. On the Internet, it isn't the author's or editor's job to verify a story. Now that job is the responsibility of the reader, which doesn't tend to happen.
How many times have stories like this popped up before, and everyone wrings their hands and predicts the end of the world, and nothing comes of it? Why become like the mindless drones people think geeks are?
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.