Slashdot Mirror
House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers
ByteHog writes "The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Monday to create a new punishment of life imprisonment for malicious computer hackers. The article on MSNBC also mentions that police can conduct internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order. Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'" Other articles can be found here and the text of the bill is available.
...welcome to the end of the free Internet, if it ever really existed. Life sentences for people who criticise the state ? It can't be too far away.
How long until the house.gov page is down?
A typical knee-jerk reaction.
Any lawyers out there know if the ACLU or someone similar can get it repealed?
Well, if hacking actually resulted in deaths, a life sentence would be applicable. Has it?
Build your own computer? You're a terrorist.
Run an "unsecured" operating system? You're a terrorist.
Share files? Terrorist.
Complain about corporate abuse? Terrorist.
Demand your Fair Use rights? Terrorist.
Fail to consume your fair share? Terrorist.
In 100 years, when they are picking over the ashes of our civilization wondering what went wrong, this will be the turning point day they decide on...the day when you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a computer.
So if I train my dog so it kills someone, I'll get a cushy 4 years in jail, but if I train my computer so it causes only fiduciary damages, I can get life in prison? That seems screwy to me.
The future isn't what it used to be.
I hope none of the 1 million Governement Snoops I read about via Drudge don't turn you y4nk33 haxxors in. (What happened to fighting the good fight with 'Hacker' vs 'Cracker', anyway?) Actually, its probably reasonable, if someone deliberately set out to kill people by screwing with Air Traffic Control or somethings. But there's a cold wind blowing from the hill.
If you read the text of the bill, life sentences are only allowed if the offender knowingly causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury.
In other words, they are authorizing life sentences for attempted murder through hacking, which I think is very reasonable. Attempted murder can already get you a life sentence, I don't see why it should be any different if you attempt it through a computer than if you attempt it through any other means.
saying lock pickers could get a life sentence, it makes no sense. Think of the crime, not of the skill.
Spanish Inquisition!
Now all we need is for the FBI to issue red vestiments to their Computer Crimes task-force and when the pop in the door they can scream:
No one expects the...
[signature]
So...
You can Launder $3.89 billion dollars; or Cook your company's books, run the ship into the ground and fuck everyone not already making $1million+/yr when the show's over; or simply fucking murder people and see little or no jail time, but reading someone's email's going to net you life in prison? Sound fair to me.
when salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon
Sure a mouse can be dangerous...
i'll take it out of my ps\2 port and smack each member of the house of representatives over the head with it!!
WTF?
I think that the US goverment is definitely misusing the whole Terrorist thing a little too much...
"eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order." ??
sounds a little over the top to me...
I've never seen nor heard of a mouse, when used as mice are intended, killing anyone. Just a *little* too much hyperbole.
sig.
Look I admit that it was a pretty poor movie, but suggesting life imprisonment for Hackers is just too much. Angelina Jolie with short hair is too cute. If you're going to start throwing people away for stuff like this, then surely we will be seeing the last of George Lucas roaming free in public as punishment for The Phantom Menace, and whoever the fuck is responsible for Star Trek, both the movies and the TV series. It's fucking awful. Actually I would support the death penalty for that.
Yessir, those nasty aweful communist/drug dealers/terrorists/threat de jour are so bad we have to covertly suspend the US constitution once again to protect Freedom and Justice. My neighbor looks like one of those geeky hacker types - fetch me my alligator clips and Rat Shack amplifier...
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This is exactly why I'm a Libertarian.
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'" ...so he is a track ball fan then?
" Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. " From the wording of this, spyware should fall under this yes? And probably any snooping programs like the one you use to watch family members....no?
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
This is true (Disney)
The hacker is NOT in US borders yet a US server is the victim?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
And my Hacker No 1 polo shirt had just come through from el Reg
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
If this is the case I see no reason why Best Buy should not be allowed to stock bombs.
Imagine the possibilities. This could bring smiles back to the faces of teens everywhere.
The sad part is, i doubt many people will fight this. Sure, the media will acknowledge its existance, but will say that it makes life sentences available for hackers who damage our infrastructure, and further hurt digital terrorists in our country (clip of something in there). Nobody will hear about the invasion of privacy stuff. Oh wait--what privacy. Sorry, guess i forgot that its not for your average American Citizen.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
I'm all for that. A new twist in warfare is to attack information storage/transfer, not bricks & mortar. This is an important step in defending ourselves.
- Bill
and thought it was april fools. it's just too unreal...
question is- what do we do about it?
would that qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? is there anything in the constitution saying the crime must fit the bill?
Where does this leave honeypot systems and the like?
Will this include items suchs as peeka-booty?
This makes me want to send a 2 line email to my congressmen including these lines:
"are you fucking retarded?
How can you say that things like this are equivelant to this?
But of course I'm sure it will soon be illegal to critisize our own gov't- because that will PROVE that we're terrorists.
(Please god don't make be become a fucking political activist.)
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Build your own computer? You're a terrorist.
Run an "unsecured" operating system? You're a terrorist.
Share files? Terrorist.
Complain about corporate abuse? Terrorist.
Demand your Fair Use rights? Terrorist.
Fail to consume your fair share? Terrorist.
Shooting people to pursue political gain? Not sure. Depends.
Holding a population hostage via threats of violence? Depends who does it.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
The funny thing is that the biggest threat to the internet right now is WorldCom itself....since they own UUnet and are going seriously bankrupt. Of course UUnet will stay alive somehow, either by WorldCom, sold to someone else, or through a government bailout. The major backbones and networks are really in a pretty powerful position, since they control major portions of the internet.
...then why pass another law?
Unless you want every constitutional right overturned by your government.
As it stands, peaceful protest is a crime in America due to legislative changes put in by good 'ol Dubya. You are not allowed to state what you are protesting about as a defense. Couple that with "Three strikes & you're out" and you have a Government stifling opposition with a threat of life (means life) improisonment.
Don't get me started about the 9/11 special emergency powers to detain without trial c/w military courts that bypass the normal criminal process applying to civilians.
Now it's an offense to use a computer.
Doesn't that sound every bit as bad as evil old Russia. Except that the Russians have never executed minors...
What I don't understand about this is why there needs to be specific bills related to computer hacking.
As I understand it, the bill relates to the case of "if the offender knowingly causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury."
Doesn't the USA have laws against this already? I mean, if I murder someone with a frozen banana, it's still murder, you don't need a law saying "you are not allowed to murder someone with a frozen banana". Surely knowingly causing or attempting to cause death or serious bodily injury is currently against the law anyway, however you go about doing it? Why is this law necessary?
"Until we secure our cyber infrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet connection is all one needs to disable the economy and endanger lives," sponsor Lamar Smith, R-Tex., said earlier this year. "A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb."
And of course the possibility of a life sentence will prevent terrorists from doing their business, whether electronically or in real life. Hmm, let's see - should I go blow up myself and take 50 more people with me or attack airplane computer systems, killing thousands and serve life sentence? Tough choice.
How about actually securing your cyber infrastructure by making sure it's secure? By running OpenBSD with open source applications that have been reviewed by tens of security experts! By prohibiting the use of closed source applications wherever security is of any importance!
That murder is usually a State, not Federal, matter. In the case of a hacker, who may be operating across State lines, it is proper for the Federal Government to get involved.
Best Slashdot Co
I like the "from the but-still-okay-to-rip-off-the-stock-market dept". That's fitting, given the posturing of congress to get tough on corporate crime.They paid lip service to it and raised some of the penalties but they've done nothing to increase the vigor with which these cases are prosecuted. To date, few of these cases have been prosecuted. When they do prosecute a company for cooking it's books, they'll be defended by the best lawyers money can buy. When a hacker is tried, he'll have the standard, substandard legal defense. The result is few corporate criminals will ever go to jail but lots of hackers will be railroaded.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.
That really doesn't sound too harsh compared to the other US laws
You can't get life from ripping a CD like some people probably will be crying about
But if you try to e.g hack a hospital to get you old granpa to croak to get his money, then you will (and should) get the same sentence as if you strangled him with his pillow
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Then buy a cat. And stop calling crackers hackers.
Well, this is just the beginning. Computers are a realatively new technology. Compared to the history of automobiles. In the beginning of widespread use, 1920's, there were certainly no need to have a license if you wanted to roam the public roads. (internet)
And If you wanted to roll your own car, no problemo. As cars became more or less everybodys-god-given-right, accidents started to happen everywhere and people did die. It will happen! Computers will be as regulated as cars. And it will happen soon. Sooner than we would like.
lazee_coward
If the Senate also approves CSEA, the new law would also:
...
Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads.
So living outside the US, my liberties remain intact (for now) and I get less popups! U-S-A U-S-A. Thank you for your misguided legislation!
Pray you never find out the hard way.
No Zen is good zen
I don't know why they've got it into there heads that computers and networks are somehow different from everything else because your using a computer does copyright law sease to exist?
We don't neen new laws when the existing ones have worked just fine (or to well in tha case of copyright).
If I kill someone by hitting them over a kead with a palm piolt, is it any different from hacking there car and causing there breaks to fail, or just cutting hte break cable..
NO...
There is one strange case where things may be different, in the UK you can't be tried for poisioning if the person dies more than a year a after the poisioning was alleged to have occured, with a computer it's easy to produce a time bomb effect.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
All play(DiabloII) and no work makes my wrist hurt.
All work and no play makes me a dull boy
First off...doesn't wiretapping without a warrent qualify as "hacking" ?!?
And 2nd, what the hell is with with this life term bullshit?!?! Some kid creeps around a system and he gets 50 years, and some CEO bilks the public out of 2-3 billion dollars and he gets to live the rest of his life in Club Med.
If I see my senator vote for this piece of trash (Hillary Clinton), she's gonna find her ass with one less vote, and I'll make it my life's work to see she doesn't get another !!!!
Rather than securing themselves offenders should be imprisoned. Oh, yeah. That sounds like a *good* lazy law. If I leave all my doors open and I get ripped off it's MY FAULT. But if I have an organisation without any security it's the hacker's fault.
... the mess that has become of the internet. There's no more hope for it now. It has become just another idiot-box like the TV.
Time to start using SSH!
While I was initially shocked by this decision, I am now of the opinion that it might actually be a good thing. It was the notion that a "mouse can be as dangerous as a bullet" that got me thinking.
The more dangerous computer criminals (no, I won't call them "hackers") are in the eyes of the public, the more respect non-criminal computer experts, like most of us here on Slashdot, will get.
When we choose to use our skills for good rather than evil, we will be seen as the benevolent protectors of society, much as the police and military (trained in the arts of combat, just like criminals) are seen today.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
or Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison? Do they allow congical visits? Seriously though. This seems quite harsh.
Today, the US Government passed a landmark bill that allows for life inprisonment for attempted murder through a computer. "Anyone can just sit down at their computer, push a button, and POOF! Instant erasure of the worst kind." says Attourney General John Ashcroft, "Not to mention most hackers can destroy the world economy from their parents basement."
Senetor Hollings also commented, "I believe this new legislation will act as a deterrant for would-be hackers trying to kill people with pirated music." he continues, "The reason why there aren't more people with broadband Internet connections is precisely because of things like this. How can the movie industry adopt a medium that can kill people with the push of a button? No, no one wants broadband if they know there's hackers out there that can kill them with a few mouse clicks."
A representative from the Bush Administration says that the new law will cut down on the rampant child pornography rings on the Internet by allowing Federal investigators to intercept any email containing questionable material and forward it directly to the President.
President Bush commented, "Al Queda is encrypting messages in porn sites all over the Internet. I plan to PERSONALLY put an end to this terrorist network."
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
I'm not sure I see how the level of sophistication should affect the sentencing. Does this happen in other crimes? ("He shot her a bit amateurishly, so we'll only give him 5 years"). And why does it make a difference whether its a government computer or not?
Malicious computer hackers? You mean like this:
"Strategic Objective . . . Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market"
--Microsoft Pricing Proposal for VJ++ 6.0
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html
they can tap and eavesdrop our computers and telephone conversations. This is more or less covered under their definition of hacking. So it's okay when they do it (no warrant, wasn't it?) but can carry a life sentence if someone else does it. Way to be free.
I'm getting rapidly sick of this. people wonder why I get so frustrated after I read the paper....
You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
http://propheteer.org
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Historically humans have always attacked and destroyed what they don't understand. That or they become religious and used religion to explain everything.
So hacking (cracking) is no different. Most people don't understand it. They see from movies that people can sink ships and fire nukes by playing with BASIC on their Apple IIe.
And yes I read that a life sentence is only for murder, but I'm sure a crime done through hacking will get a longer punishment than through "normal" means. There are examples of this happeneing already.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
So, Ken Lay and the upper crooks at Enron get to walk away with billions in their pocket after destroying the lives of their employees (and holding California for ransom with a fake energy crisis, no less).
Yet, if you're branded a "hacker", you can face life in jail. Never mind that the government's definition of the word "hacker" will undoubtadly be extremely broad, and probably executed with the same finesse that "Operation Sundevil" was (Steve Jackson, are you there?).
So what's a hacker? A 15-year-old who defaces a web page using a skr1pt, or an open source programmer working on Samba? What's the criteria...vandalism, or reverse engineering? If Microsoft cries "Hacker!" and points at the Samba team, does that mean the Ashcroft SWAT will kick their doors down?
(I'm well aware that a true hacker is neither of the above...but they are a dying breed.)
Honestly, in some countries, you'll get your hands cut off for simply stealing a loaf of bread, thats why no one does it (I hope). They're implying tough laws so no one breaks them, whats wrong with that? Why are you all trying to defend law breaking? Of course some laws were made to be broken, but all in all, if you're going to do the crime, be prepared to do the time.
But of course! You can use the ball in a cannon, and the LED of an optical as a laser! And if all else fails, you can still swing it by the tail and throw!
Score:1, Unread
it seems like getting the life sentence is becoming a trend in America. Know about the Californian "Three Strikes and you are out" Law? (Basically commit three crimes and you automatically get a life sentence!). The danger I see here is the "life sentence" getting watered down so that after some time people will start demanding harsher punishments.What happened to four years without parole?
Expect to be liable to a death sentence one day in a few years.
Every problem has a better solution when you start thinking it differently than the normal way.[Steve Wozniak]
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
So a keyboard must be at least as dangerous as a 4-way hidrogen bomb triggered by a BSOD.
This has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard of. A hacker, and I bet that includes someone who would launch a DoS attack too, does endanger human life the simple way a murderer does. So how can it be that they would life imprisonment whereas a killer would get maybe 20 years.
This is ridiculous. It is a gross construement of moral values on the House's part. But a I guess we now truly know that they value the money being put into their wallets by the computer industry more than their own principles for sure now.
Does this include tcpdump? What about nmap? Are they "devices"? If not, will the lawmakers eventually realize that there is no real functional difference between s/w and h/w and try to ban these tools because hackers use them?
What a witch hunt. It's easy for some of us to say, "Well, that's the US for you", but this kind of thing affects all of us, not only because so much of the net is hosted in the US, but because the US aggressively tries to export its value system to the rest of the world (for the "good" of everyone, of course).
USAians should be very worried about their country's current stampede back into the Middle Ages.
There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
SEC. 106. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.
Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.
If you try to kill somebody you might get a life term, no different to recklessly or knowingly causing death any other way. So you try to crash air traffic control computers you get thrown in jail for life - sorry if I'm not too sympathetic.
Do they consider widening pages as "hacking"? I don't want to get a life sentence for that!
Have you hugged your moderator today?
That's what it looks like to me.
Murder is murder is murder, whether you use a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, an umbrella or a computer[1].
It seems that the major western governments are rushing towards right wing police states, using terrorism as the excuse to do so. Do your "representatives" really represent you in this?
[1] Though not a spoon. I think you should be let off for ingenuity if you manage to kill someone with a spoon.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Might as well make up a law for people who commit murder via postal mail, or telephone. Ohh, and those damned terrorists using carrier pigions to kill people too! We need that. -sig ommited cause it sucks-
::i visited slashdot and all i got was this lousy sig::
Yeah... I live in Canada. How long o you think it will take before "we" catch on with those ridiculous laws? Current Canada administration would do anything that the US ask just to make good impressions so that the US treat us like their little brother... Nah, stay were you are, at least your contry is not affraid to the point of not even defending it's own teritorial waters when some fisher boats don't want to leave...
I'd rather be sailing...
I guess that if they want to crak computers they will have to break into all the MP3 traders computers.
their defination of a hacker...
- 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Although the mistake of considering the mouse the hacker's weapon (it should be the keyboard), he knows what he's talking about.For they if someone dies, there's always somebody else giving birth somewhere. But if they lose money, they can't win it again. So, for them money is much more important then lives.
Now we are sure that this is the way they think!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
here is the focal point of this discussion:
`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'. (my bold)
You may think of 'hacking' as an act in and of itself. This bill deals with various crimes that a 'hacker' might perform, using hacking as a tool or a means.
For additional perspective, refer to these acts mentioned in the bill:
(F) whether the offense involved a computer used by the government in furtherance of national defense, national security, or the administration of justice;
(G) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and
(H) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person;...
Examples of acts that are contemplated here: disabling a national defense warning system; flooding a city by opening the spillways on a dam; disabling the air traffic control system in a busy metropolitan area.
And for those who will quickly argue that these systems should not be connected to the Internet, note that the bill does not limit these acts of 'hacking' to access from the Internet. Hacking can also include access from inside a company or facility, dialup access to a piece of critical equipment, or even some acts of 'social engineering.'
These are not new criminalizations of innocent acts. They are simply expansions of existing principles to include new technology and means of hurting people and property.
you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a computer.
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
Evil is the money of root.
I guess congressmen hate popunders, too.
Now if only they could ban advertisement of travel agencies and teen porn.
From the article:
Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
Oh so now they might hackers can be put away for life? What about is phreakers? Why are we always left out of the equation here? I demand on behalf of all the Phreakers everywhere that the EFF & ACLU file federal discrimation lawsuits against the government for not granting phreakers the equal rights of be thrown in a deep dark prison for the rest of thier lives for making free phone calls! This must be done! this is an INJUSTICE... so basically a hacker can take down amazon.com or whoever.. and go away for life and a phreaker could take down Worldcomm(oh wait they did that to themselves) err AT&T's network and go away for only a few years!! TRAVESTY PEOPLE TRAVESTY!!!
We Phreakers demand Equal RIGHTS!
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
So can a House member for Texas if he falls on you from a great height.
The article on MSNBC also mentions that police can conduct internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order.
Why dont they just install cameras in our homes and work places, and monitor every thing every one does and says. It seemed to work fine in 1984
1)i guess i shoulda used the preview button
2)my sig sucks worse than yours does
::i visited slashdot and all i got was this lousy sig::
If it takes each recipient an average of one second[1] to identify and delete a spam, then sending (60*60*24*365*70) = Two Thousand Million spams will consume a lifetime[2] of time[3] on the part of the recipients.
Could we convince the lawmakers that a life for a lifetime would be an appropriate punishment?
Andrew
[1]Some people read them, some scan them, some deal with them automagically, 1 second average is a guestimate.
[2]Three score years and ten. Seems like a reasonable number.
[3]Of course this ignores the waste of resource and collateral damage, such as an important email junked because it looked like spam or an importand email lost amongst the spam.
When do people understand the diffrence between words 'hacker' and 'cracker'? Evil crackers of cource should punished, but good hackers should be awarded.
It's called politics.
A bunch of old white men have nothing better to do than to waste our money passing bills that are useless but make them look like fargon geniuses (to the average idiot American) so they can get re-elected and pocket some more campaign funds.
Nicely put. But I'll add:
Peace: A situation where there hasn't been any overt terrorist activities, and the government decides it cannot afford to sustain the high-level of alert because of budget deficits and the coming elections.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
It's not just hacking. Posting a link to information deemed illegal in the US will also get people into trouble.
Bills like this point to the fact that Congress and the President are out of touch with the public and reality. It's one thing if Slashdotters are writing about how pissed off they are or the nutty "Free Congress Foundation" (authors of an "Islam is bad and sponsors killing of Christians" article) have their panties in a bunch.
But I think it's interesting when right-wing Christians, ACLU folks, EFFers and who knows who else all agree that something such as the Patriot act and derived laws are illegal and offensive. Even some "regular" people I know living in the heartland of America are getting angry about the disregard for civil liberties and the ability to purchase legislation.
You know how they say history repeats itself? The activism late 60s and early 70s is coming around again in a few years after people can't stand it any more. Only this time it may be many, many different types of people protesting which could result in massive change. As Ben pointed out, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"life imprisonment for malicious computer hackers". Considering they prosecute 14 year old kids when they expose mail server exploits in govt. computers.. it will be scary to see what they consider "malicious computer hackers". irc.openprojects.net users may have to start using anonymous proxies, they may consider what goes on in there conspiracy. Poking around on your webhosts shell may get you life if your not careful. --Neurosys
That hacking is life and being a drunken crackhead felon who's business success is little more than a series of well placed bribes funded by other people and you still get to be president.
Thank God being busted with a bag of reefer gets you Federal time with multiple murderers while white collar crooks get to become 'lobbyists' and 'policy advisors'.
Thank God we have our priorities straight. Thank God we can now indict people on Federal charges that carry life sentences, without a warrant.
When you need to evaluate laws, don't think of what it was intended for. Think of how it could be abused. "Had the effect of creating a threat" is very vague. A threat is bad, but it is something very different from the action. Unintentionally causing a threat should be treated accordingly.
Read the penalties section of the bill. Its life imprisonment for people who attempt to cause death through hacking. That is, if I hack into a control tower and try to make planes crash, I might be sentenced to life in prison.
Currently, that would be a weak case of attempted murder. We have crimes in the country that say "If you commit a crime, there's a penalty. If you commit a crime with a weapon, thats a more serious penalty." Well, when using computers as a weapon, its a weapon.
If I kill someone by hitting them over a kead with a palm piolt, is it any different from hacking there car and causing there breaks to fail, or just cutting the break cable..
No it's no diffrent. However the palm piolt does not come with a promis that this can't be done. Where as mots hacked networks are aledged to be unbreakable
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
All of our laws are written like this. That's why we have juries, defense lawyers, and many layers of appellate courts.
Evil is the money of root.
do they have life sentences for corporate fraud?
- slashdotter@bobbysullivan.com
In most states of the US (and most developed nations) you are not allowed to operate an automobile without maintaining basic safety (and emissions) equipment. I expect sometime in the near future similar requirements may be made of systems connected to the internet.
Today the conversations may look like: .. I pay for this service and I'm not responsible / can't afford to fix it ...
ISP: Your system is being used for attack by an intruder, if you don't take it offline and get it fixed we will enforce our AUP and take you offline.
customer1: Ooops, sorry ok we'll spend the $$ / time to fix it
customer2:YOU CAN'T DO THAT
ISP: CLICK
Today, while it's feasible to keep systems patched / audited for a reasonable level of safety, many (most?) orgainizations don't have the skillset / funds allocated to keep their systems secure against even the 'kiddies, let alone a determined attacker. That's gonna have to change IMO either thru systems that are harder to break into in the first place or better practices.
Some of the provisions of this bill are also simple clarifications of existing statutes. For instance see the provision: Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. -- apparently while it's illegal to advertise wiretapping equipment in print, this will extend the restriction to online ads also.
This explains why I've been seeing the adds and spame for keyboard keystroke recorders (shame on you thinkgeek!) and packet sniffers to protect (spy on) your kids or spouse.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Admittance that the internet is not, and never will be secure?
And a book or political tract can be even deadlier -- look at the track record of the Communist Manifesto.
Will Congressman Smith sponsor a law against books, next? This whole thing reeks of technophobia.
One of the things the Yahoo story mentions is that any type of service provider will be required to save outgoing e-mail for 90 days.
Think about that. If you run sendmail- you are now REQUIRED to spy on your own users, and cache all their e-mail for 90 days whether they like it or not.
A hacker goes to jail for life - but a traitor that joins the enemy with the intent to kill americans only gets 20 years?
This is symptomatic of a prevailing fear by those in power of those who can disseminate information they cannot understand or control. We are no longer on a slippery slope to losing our freedoms. We have entered free-fall.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
It's getting to the point where you can't voice an objection to things like this. I mean, if I did, some cop may likely decide that my dissent means I'm a prime target to eavesdrop on. The next law will allow them even broader and more vague situations where they're allowed "search & seizure".
Along with this, life in America is getting sillier every moment.
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
That kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information--not the contents of online communications or telephone calls.
Okay, I'm thoroughly confused. So you think someone is 'hacking' into a system and may cause 'bodily harm'. You're allowed to find essentially the location of said individual, but you can't snoop the data in the packets, only the packet headers? Does this make sense to anyone else? How can you actually tell what someone is doing without looking at the data they're sending across.
OTOH, is this a loophole? "Sorry, you couldn't possibly have any idea what I was doing on that system unless you were snooping packet data, which is clearly illegal."
<sigh> Bartender, send those folks at the end of the bar a clue, on me...
--trb
Use encrytpion. It's what the terrorists use. This law will affect nothing.
The most important thing is IP & headers. SPOOF me baby.
I had the same "knee jerk" reaction but...
/jarek
"(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'."
This just acknowledges that computers are integral and vital parts of our lifes and can be used in malicious ways just as knifes or guns. Welcome to the global village and the on-line world people.
I am sure that many of you read about the Honeypot that was hacked into last week and eventually the hacker himself was located.
Does this mean that teenage "hackers" (Very loosely used) will now be tried as adults and put in prison for life?
Many of those people barely know what they are doing, as was shown with the hack attempt on that OpenBSD honeypot.
What I really want to know, is why the heck can a mouse be as dangerous as a bomb? Don't people back up data? That is a terrible generalization. There shouldn't be any reason for a mouse to be as dangerous as a bomb. The systems that could allow such damage to occur should NEVER be accessible by unauthorized individuals. They should be on their own hardened network, seperate from the rest of the net.
Sure, it can be helpful to have an application that connects to the nuclear reactor's control and monitoring station so that a director can view and alter the flow of nuclear material from his internet connected desk computer. Why the heck take the chance that some SOB angry 15 year old or terrorist would be able to access that system?
Personally, I think that this threat is being blown WAY out of proportion and is really designed to protect corporate networks that aren't locked down enough. I say to bad. If they want to have internet connected desktops across their enterprise, then they better be ready for the assault that WILL happen. If they don't like that idea, then they should cut themselves off of the internet, only allowing E-mail to come and go from their network. Sure, a few workstations would need net access, but not EVERY single workstation in the company.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
john lind gets 20 years, murderers get less (sometimes), but we'll throw the damned hackers away for life. why? they're evil i tells ye, EVIL!!!
in america, your sentence depends largely on how much damage you can do to any said corporation. whether or not you choose to believe it, that is the way that it is. hackers (as you've been told before, dummy) pose one of the largest potential threats to corporations losing money. i'm guessing that this should allow a corporation to get away with failing to secure client records and other pertinent information in the most secure and effective manner. "it was the hacker's fault"...
i'd dedicate my life to getting this kicked back, but there's more injustice out there. it's just another item to worry about for those of us who actually give a crap.
(G) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and
(H) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person;...
So if Joe sends an email to Jane and for some reason that email trigger some weird bugs that somehow cause some shitty system to go down and that system going down cause G or H then you can get life imprisonment for sending an email?
Ok that exemple is a bit extreme, but still, given how everthing is/can be interconnected through computers who knows how much unintended effects can result from some interraction with buggy software.
The 20 year penalty is for "an attempt to commit bodily harm". The Life sentence is for "an attempt to cause a death".
Nevertheless, the bill does not *merely* do what the news reports claim, and in that, it is alarming.
The interesting part is the definition of "protected system", which is taken from "18 U.S.C. 1030" (search for it in your favorite search engine), and the modifications made to it by the bill.
It does not involve only government computers, as the text of the bill itself implies. It also involves "any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954" -- most of which is public information these days, and available from many web sites containing information on basic high energy physics (apparently, congress-critters believe that if they can't figure something out without a crib sheet, neither can your average university-trained physicist or engineer, which is why they think they could successfully legislate against light switches).
Further, it includes records from "information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer", per "15 U.S.C. 1681".
This can be loosely interpreted to mean "any system which stores credit card numbers".
--
The real question that we should be asking is whether this is a Writ Of Mandamus... it seems so, since there do not appear to be practical restraints on use of information gathered under the terms of this bill (i.e. "We thought he was a terrorist; as it turns out, our justification was bogus, but we still get to use the evidence gathered to inform against him for that Metallica MP3 he downloaded").
From my reading, it's unconstitutional, under the 4th Ammendment.
Of course, since it passed by such an incredible amount in the House, there no reason to believe that it will not quickly become law: it clearly has wide bipartisan support, and will clearly get the White House's approval (see below).
What that effectively means is that it will remain law, until it is challenged by a perpetrator on the basis of constitutionality. Basically, the law will have to be violated to be tested, at considerable risk to the violators, given the tendency recently for the Federal Government to use the Bill Of Rights in place of toilet paper.
I guess the only thing we don't know is whether this is an overreaction to last September, or if its an overreaction to the lack of consumer confidence in the market, where they think if they can point to themselves "*doing* something about some real market risk", we will forget all about "the man behind the curtain", and not insist on substantive tort reform.
If you read the House Report version of the bill, you'd think the latter (e.g. reaction to "Enron")... almost all of the listed congressmen are from -- *surprise!* -- Texas.
The Constitutional basis for incorporation itself is to serve the public and shareholders interests (read the relevent USC on incorporation, if you don't believe me); this seems to have been reduced to nothing more than "fiduciary responsibility to protect shareholder value, and screw public interst". More fundamental reform is required: this is not about people not acting like a--holes for fear of the penalty, it's about people not acting like a--holes because they *aren't* a--holes.
-- Terry
Murder is normally a state crime, because you commit it in a state. When killing someone crosses state lines, you need the Feds. Additionally, when it is possible via Modem/Internet, you have a case where the FCC and Courts have ruled (at least in some circumstances, I believe) that it is always Interstate and Federal jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that Federal does not mean more seriously.
In the scenario where you got a really big kill (say wiped out lower Manhattan), you don't want to leave it to New York to deal with, when they might be dealing with massive problems. Letting the Feds run the manhunt, investigation, and prosecution for this makes sense.
Assassinating the President is a Federal crime, so its not unprecedented for the Feds to outlaw murder.
Alex
Of course they can. The law means what they say it means, these days. Who cares about the Constitution any more?
I recall the Bush talking, back some months ago, about how the Constitution is "not a suicide pact". Guess what, it is. It's a governmental suicide pact. Like it or hate it, it's the program by which our country is supposed to run, for the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people. Since Congress hasn't declared any sort of war, much of what's been going on recently is illegal. You cannot declare war on an action or a thing, only a country (War on Drugs! War on Terrorism!).
What would happen if everyone in government just stayed home for a week? Everyone in the country, for a day? That might get the message out.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
If the Senate also approves CSEA, the new law would also:
...Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
So, no more X10 popups, then? :-)
Once this bill passes the Senate, I'm waiting for the first news story of someone's online traces being turned over to the FBI by their ISP while hacking in a legal competition.
I just think that it'll be interesting to see just how involved the FBI gets in monitoring now that they have more authority and the ISPs have less in the way of obstacles to turning over network logs. I predict some of them will just save the hassle of arguing and turn over user information as soon as the FBI comes knocking.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
Leave the US.
It's imploding anyway, and there are plenty of well-paying opportunities in other countries, which will also not brand you a 'terrorist' for fiddling and learning.
Me, I went from California to Germany, and I'm very happy. Feel free to look at Europe (Ireland or UK for english-only speakers), Australia (also english) or the pacific rim.
Are you willing to risk life imprisonment and/or major harassment from the state? I know I'm not.
Really. Leave. It's only going downhill from here. Perhaps in the near future, you won't be allowed to leave ("Removing vital knowledge from US soil - terrorist")
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
My question is, why do we need a new law in the first place? Last time I checked all those things you mentioned are already illegal. My worry is someone will get life for doing something that doesn't "threaten" or whatever a human life. Well, it doesn't really matter anyways. It's not like he'll get a trail under our military tribunal system anyways.
It simply boggles the mind how these fucktards running our country can make a law for every single thing in existence in the world, covering the same crime by 50 or 60 different laws...
Grrr... obviously they don't have anything better to do than waste our tax dollars and pork interns(not just Billy boy, mind you, the whole lot of our public servants mostly), or possibly kill them. It is becoming excruciatingly painfully obvious that our public officials are not like the average American, they are much, much greedier and of much lower character.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
My god, he's right! We must make sure these screwdriver murderers face proper justice! There oughta be a law. . !
Seriously, if murder is already illegal, why does murder with a computer have have to have special legislation?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Who wants to move to Russia with me so we can be free again?
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
unless you are doing sumthin illegal-like. the bill is meant to tackle ewwil hackers in the pay of the enemmy. get a life. you are just a statiststic. do you really think anybody cares about the porn stash you got hidden away. i am seriuos, not troll ing. suppose soneone hacked into a large hospital and messed it up an patients expired just because the anesth gas pump stopped. suppose it was ur mom or dad. suppose it was YOU. or someone switched the red and green lights and caysed accidents on the turnpike. you wouldnt like that. so this stops ther terrorists to think twice before doing evil acts. from their point of view its war. so be it. lets also clean up our act for crissakes. get rid of the crooks too.
A mouse is NOT as dangerous as a bullet or bomb.
It's certainly not the same type of crime, and computer hacking should not be punished in the same way as a murder. Malicious hacking is more akin to arson or vandalism.
A mouse can not directly hurt anyone as can a bullet or bomb.
I think that a life sentence for DoS'ing a web server would be much too excessive a punishment for the crime.
Plus, everyone says that malicious hackers could potentially destroy lives (by taking down hospital systems or something?) but as far as I know, there has been no proof of this yet.
I think it is funny that hackers can get life in prison by doing maybe a few million in damages to a company or government. But then the CEOs of WorldCom and Enron can fuck their employees out of their retirement and all savings they might have had by cheating the system. Not to mention the amount of money investors are out of because the stock market has tanked. Have you heard what sentence they are going to get? Nothing I am sure. Pure bullshit!
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Good thing we didn't have this law in place when Robert Morris had his accident.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
I'll show this Unnamed Player how dangerous a mouse can be...
Example 1: You throw a rock off an overpass with the intention of cracking someone's windshield as a prank. The rock causes a fatal accident. Even though you didn't intend to kill anybody, you will probably be at least ELIGIBLE for life in prison, depending on the laws of your state.
Example 2: You set a soda can on the railing of an overpass. You accidently knock the soda can off, and it causes a fatal accident. If the circumstances can be proven, it's unlikely that you will face life in prison.
The judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense lawyer all play into the conviction/acquital and length of sentence, based on the circumstances.
I was once on a jury that convicted a rapist. We could have given him any prison term from zero to life. We deliberated and selected a term that was appropriate for the circumstances.
Evil is the money of root.
http://www.hacktivismo.com/ being down?
It's simple, if you elect a xenophobic, (ex)alcoholic, opportunistic idiot for president you get a lousy government that issues stupid policies.
Any of you guys who voted for Bush have no right to complain now but if you don't like it you can always reconsider at the next election.
The bill just passed in the House of Representatives, but still has to be passed in the Senate. This means that while it is well on it's way, it it is not yet a law. The bill can still be rejected or even just reviewed and changed when it gets to the Senate. (this happens frequently. Poloticians seem to like the taste of things better once they have pissed in it)
Editorials aside, if you object to the bill you have a small window of time here where you can still do something about it. Write your SENATORS. If you really want it to have an effect, sport for a stamp and send your letter via snail-mail. (Rumor has it that most parts of government ignore email these days) But i that is too hard, write them an email at least, it may not help, but it can't hurt.
Finally, not all of the bill is absolutly horrible. But a few parts need serious scrutiny. You will come off soundling less like the lunatic fringe if you suggest revisions backed by logical concerns.
The parts that seem to be most "dangerous" are the following (from the MSNBC article):
If the Senate also approves CSEA, the new law would also:
* Require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revise sentencing guidelines for computer crimes. The commission would consider whether the offense involved a government computer, the "level of sophistication" shown and whether the person acted maliciously.
* Formalize the existence of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. The center, which investigates and responds to both physical and virtual threats and attacks on America's critical infrastructure, was created in 1998 by the Department of Justice, but has not been authorized by an act of Congress. The original version of CSEA set aside $57.5 million for the NIPC; the final version increases the NIPC's funding to $125 million for the 2003 fiscal year.
* Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
Just my $.02.
How does one kill someone across state lines? Does their head have to land in Michigan and their ass in Ohio???
Where the person dies is where the murder is.
CEOs rob for billions, max sentence 10 maybe 20 years.
Crackers cause $100,000s worth of damage, sentence...life.
Is their any doubt that corporations run this nation?
What, not even one funny [i]in other news[/i] post yet? I'll never read Slashdot again!
from the real world. Bush's opinion polls are still as high as they were during height of the "War on Terror." What's more, besides the fact that he's merely extremely popular, I, at least, agree with his policies, by and large. We're not merely trying to secure justice, what we're really fighting is the future massive terrorist attacks. Although it will certainly help, these attacks won't go away just because Osama and every last Al Queda are dead. The simple truth of the matter is that we were NEVER previously configured to fight that kind of terrorism, from some of our laws, to our intelligence services, to simply the way that we treat those that harbor and aid terrorists. This means that, yes, sometimes people do need to be held without a public trial. Sometimes we need to draw clear lines and define those countries that accept terrorist camps on their land as "evil", so as to affect change, despite the fact that they may be nominally neutral. And so on... We can't just go back our old way of doing things entirely. It's foolish to expect us to fight something rather new while resting, albeit ignorantly, in the comfort of our old ways of doing things, at least with any real analysis. Yes, you may know the old way of doing things, but have you really thought through the consequences of it in light of the circumstances? I don't think you have.
i wouldn't worry too much about this. Especially the part about the police eavesdropping without court order. besides, if you're gonna hack do it as "anonymous coward" from a library's computer!
Don't discriminate. More and more poorly designed systems are running Linux and various alternatives to Microsoft every day.
"I don't see myself crashing into someone and killing them with my computer...."
/lazee_coward
I see somebody crashing into you...
Last thing you'll see is that blue screen busting up your eyelobes
Sounds a little harsh?
(5) if the offender knowingly causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury in a violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.
they arent talking about a DoS attack & they arent talking about defacing someones website. they are talking about air traffic contol systems, stoplight controls on busy intersections, railway switching programs, nuclear powerplant software and other things that have the potential to cause graet harm...
they may have been watching to many movies, but I see where they are coming from....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Just to play devil's advocate. Killing someone might be seen as population control and has relatively low impact on society. Taking down the FBI network on the otherhand has a much bigger impact and in some ways is much harder to measure. Our legal system is in no way perfect, or very effective, but laws are made by flawed people for flawed people.
Life is what we make of it, so people are better off helping each other than bitch about how bad a certain law is. Let's not forget a nation is made up of people, not laws. As long as the citizens of a nation help each other for common good, a bad law doesn't mean much. Democracy is not a right people. It's a job that requires constant attention.
What are these people smoking? First of all, real computer hacking is not "magical". It isn't like in the movies. Generally speaking, nearly all hacks take advantage of either a known bug in a networking program, or laziness. Computer hacking is not about smashing down a steel vault door...its about walking in the back door that someone left unlocked and cracked open.
Generally, the easiest way to do it is to get someone's password by either conning someone into giving it to you; sending someone a trojan email with a keystroke logger embedded in it (best and easiest way); or installing a hardware logger (if you have physical access).
OBVIOUSLY, if a computer system cannot be accessed it can't be hacked! What important financial or military computer has ACTUALLY been hacked?
Most of the court cases are stupid. They involve someone downloading software that others have written to take advantage of known software bugs (a script kiddie) and using it to mess around. Sure, a major site might go offline for a few hours....but the world of computing has so many "natural" technical glitches that's hardly a problem.
Viruses only affect major companies because the employees there are stupid and lazy. They continue to use Outlook, they don't filter executables out of incoming mail, and they don't update their software.
Oh sure, some scipt kiddies have broken into DoD "classified email" servers, but how does that warrant a life in prison?
Unlike the movies, most real machinery and IMPORTANT computer systems are generally not upgradable without pulling chips or at least gaining access with tools to the serial port.
First, survelliance without a court order is unconstitutional. This portion of the bill will surely be stricken down by the Supreme Court.
Second, the rest of the law is redundant and unnecessary. Crimes committed via the internet should receive the same punishment as those in the real-world, where the situation is analagous. For example, breaking and entering can be treated the same. Simply hacking into a persons computer is breaking and entering, even if it causes no damage; similarly, breaking/entering into a person's home, even if you do no damage or steal nothing (and don't damage the locks), is a crime.
When a hacker purposefully hacks into, say the USAF HQ, and steals top-secret documents on airplane design, then divulges them to China that's a crime just as it is in real life (treason). Similarly, it should be punishable just as it is in real life (by life in prison or death).
Another example, if a mob boss orders an underling to kill someone via an on-line e-mail, that's murder and conspiracy to commit murder. It should be punished just as it is in real life: by life in prison or death.
The fact that a crime took place over the media of the internet does not greaten or lessen its severity or lack-thereof. It simply creates a jurisdictional issue. The issue can be solved like such: if a crime is committed on the internet and its affect occurs in that state, then its the state's jurisdiction; if it occurs in one state and affects another (i.e., the mob boss in NY orders his hitman to kill someone in CA), then it should be under federal jurisdiction.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
SEC. 104. INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.
Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting `or disseminates by electronic means' after `or other publication'; and
(2) by inserting `knowing the content of the advertisement and' before `knowing or having reason to know'.
Problem 1, you can't generally prove what a person was or was not thinking when they did something. It's their word against that of... well, who exactly is an authority on the contents of someone else's mind? Mistress Cleo or whatever her name is, with the 900 number?
Problem 2, there really is a difference between "first vs. second degree murder" and "hate crime or not." The first case is about a person's particular motivations and thought processes for the crime in question. But a hate crime amounts to something slightly different.
Let's say I hate black people and think they deserve to die (I don't, but let's say). Let's say there's readily available proof of this (hate literature in my handwriting, photos of me shaking hands with David Duke, etc.). Now suppose I decide to knock over a liquor store. It goes wrong, and the hapless clerk gets a faceful of lead. But oops, he was black! I'm now a hate criminal, as opposed to just a bigot who knocks over liquor stores.
The difference here is that for something like first-degree murder, it can in many cases be reasonably demonstrated that there was calculation, that the motivation for the crime had certain characteristics we see as worse than a simple fit of rage. But for a hate crime, all you can really prove is a coincidence (literally, for two things to coincide). You've got a crime, and you've got a pattern of hate against people like the victim. But only in extremely specialized circumstances will it be absolutely demonstrable that the crime itself was a direct result of that hate. I would have to have a great deal more faith in the justice system than I do if I wanted to believe that only in such cases would hate crime laws be applied. In the real world, having such laws means punishing people for what they happen to think, not because of anything pertinent to their actual crime. That's thought crime, and it's a really bad idea to set such a precedent.
It's also totally unnecessary. There is such a thing as flexibility in sentencing (don't get me started on mandatory sentences, though). If it's clear that a killer is a really despicable person, a murderous bigot or whatever, I think that flexibility should be sufficient to account for it and give a harsher sentence.
My deviantArt site
Here's someone who actually read the bill(s) and gave a careful, reasoned analysis of the actual effect of this bill, the limit of it's reach, and the probability of whether it will be eventually limited, or struck down by the courts. Most of you seem to have had a knee-jerk reaction about the "life in prison" part, and ignored entirely the "search" part.
Isn't it interesting how comments posted on Slashdot are so very different depending upon which countries are being discussed?
Many of the comments to this story are along the line of "dumb politicians don't know what they are doing" or "why is this new law necessary?"
Very few people people are talking about the fact that it will allow the government to listen in on email communications without a court order.
If however, this story had been about China, I guarantee the comments would all be along the lines of "communist China is evil", "this shows that Chinese don't have the same freedom that we Americans have", "the Chinese don't understand technology", etc., etc.
If it was Europe the comments would be along the lines of "this shows that those European socialist governments can do whatever they want", "Americas have the most freedom of anyone in the world", etc. etc.
But hey - they NEVER blow up the doors of the wrong people, and they've never shot innocent people at all. Nope
But that's an entirely different discussion.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Just great, now we'll have a five-day waiting period on mice, and export controls.
And now that he's equated mice with weapons, wouldn't the 2nd Amendment kick in to guarantee your right to keep and bear mice?
Last question in relation to that statement: If a cracker only uses the keyboard, is he safe from prosecution?
Fear of the unknown??? Come on, that's a phrase you use for giant city destroying lizards, space aliens and under sea monsters, not hacking. Hacking, distilled to it most basic element is breaking and entering. I don't give a shit if curiosity is your only crime; If you're going to break into somebodies electronic house and rifle through, steal and/or destroy somebody's electronic shit, you oughta get smacked down for it. And like breaking and entering, if you should happen to kill somebody through accident or intent (ie; somebody mentioned crashing an air traffic control network) during the act, you should face the real-world consequences everybody else faces. Do you actually believe a burgler or an arsenist is somehow justified for breaking into your home or destroying your property by saying tripe like "You just fear the unknown" or "curiocity is my only crime"? Tme to return to the real world, ace.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
if i used my computer to find the nearest planned parenthood, could they say that my behavior online resulted in a death? okay, it's a stretch.
Why does this sig rock so hard?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Its shocking that some 1337 h4x0r site cracker can get life in prison while at the same time, a child rapist or a murderer may get a tenth of that time. WTF is up with that? I'd like to see em' try to put someone away for life just for defacing www.joesixpackssite.com. This government irritates me more and more each day. I wish I had voting rights two years ago. Probably wouldn't have done any good then either.
...at least I'll get out of jail in 5-10 years.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(Sec. 105) Prohibits the distribution of advertisements of illegal interception devices through the Internet as well as by other, specified media.
It is becomming more and more correct every day, and it's scary as hell!
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
Good point. We need a new screwdriver law.
And to think that four students were killed at Kent State, yet, no one was ever held accountable.
I really have problems with this bill. If hacking results in death, perhaps I can understand. If it is part of a terrorist attack or other act of war, then that's fine. To make a blanket punishment for hacking in general is proposterous. We already see far too many punishments that are stiffer when regarding money than when regarding human life. So we'll have drunk drivers who kill someone getting 7 years and parole, and a script kiddie who causes a DOS against a website getting life in prison? Puhleeze. >
Comment removed based on user account deletion
-Turkey
You first state, that the US should have these laws, because using computers is different.
But the you say, that by using a computer as a weapon, you should be treated like you committed the crime with a weapon.
So, why does the US need those laws again?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Maybe so, but read some of L0pht's papers about the widely insecure remote access to power grids, city works (traffic controls, etc.), and other such things which are probably very hackable and not connected to the internet.
I must be out of the loop: the L0pht never released any white papers on infrastructure insecurity. They merely, at the behest of the NIPC, testified before Congress something to the effect of "if we wanted to, we could hack the nation inside of an hour" or some ridiculous hyperbole like that. They're good hackers and all, but the sane mind looks to the reasons why they said what they did without any proof as they'd be wont to provide in any other situation: the almighty buck. The FBI got its "cybercrimes" division and the L0pht merged with @Stake, who now performs federal contract work for... guess who?
Judges take intent into consideration. If I steal a car and intentionally run someone down, it will be treated differently than if I steal a car and accidentally hit someone; these laws handcuff the human element, turning judges from arbiters of law into life-sentence machines.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I propose we have life sentences for irresponsible lawmakers.
A badly written law does far more damage than a bomb, a bullet or a feckless hacker.
While I agree that malicious hackers need to be held accountible for their actions, a life sentence seems rather "over-the-top" when compared to murder or child molestation.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Now if we can only get spammers classified as "hackers". =)
Though this bill is bad (in that its privacy-rights violations are unconstitutional) and rendant (in that everything it bans is already dealt with adequately by another law), it does not give the death penalty to a teenager who simply hacks into someone's computer. The death penalty is explicity reserved for cases where an online hacker knowingly causes the death of another person, or the rape, or the torture thereof (if either of those are possible to cause online). This is not uneven law. Its essentially the same law as exists in the real world.
Personally, I think that we should also give out life in prison to people like Gary Wennig (Gloal Crossings), Kenneth Lay (Enron), and Martha Stewart. These people ruined lives just as surely as if they'd killed individuals. You don't think their crimes are of similar magnitude as those of rape/murder/torture? Well, what are the effects of rape/murder/torture? In all cases, the victims life is over, ruined, or crippled for years. And the effects of Wennig, Lay, and Stewart stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from investors? The same. Thus, I think they should be given life in prison.
But if we are to do such, we should do so universally. We do not give life in prison to someone who kills with a machete and a slap on the wrist to someone who kills with Cyanide. Similarly for the internet. The tool with which a crime is carried out should not effect the punishment we deem appropriate.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Every time the "punishment for hackers" subject comes up the whole slashdot crowd starts whining about how unfair it is. Look, don't give me this whole, "but XYZ's computer system is unsafe, and we're actually doing them a favor." Or the infamous, "knowledge should be free." Do I have the right to break into your house if you don't lock the front door? What is the difference? I'm doing you a favor, by showing you how unsecure your house is. Airports are surrounded by a simple chain link fence, and some barb-wire. Hey, I think it is pretty unfair that the government would throw the book at me if I hopped over/under and ran across a runway, with a plane on final approach, just to show how easy I could do it!
These 2 main arguments used time and time again, make no sense. People have the right to protect their private property, and that includes computer systems, whether you like it or not.
Why do I feel like so many slashdot people feel they're above the law on certain issues? This one and piracy come directly to mind.
So they needed a new law for this? If I broke into a powerplant or something like that, caused damage that resulted in deaths, I'd be ok? I doubt it. Doing it physically or via computers shouldn't matter. Gee, next you'll tell me that CEOs need special laws in order to go to jail if they commit fraud.
'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Uh, isnt most hacking done on keyboards?
...um...like...a sig...
just another reason to move to your northernly neihbour, russia. just kidding CANADA. where stupidity runs just a wee bit smaller than in the US.
Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1030
This section here is what is modified by the section of "Strengthening Penalties. It helps to read this first to see what is actually being changed and modified. You can access the rest of Title 18 there as well.
What?
what idiots! Does this mean we need to arm ourelves to the teeth? If a government agent comes
to our home to arrests us under the suspicion of
hacking, then do we take them out? That's what they are telling us since the price is so high..
life for hacking, give me a break. 3-5 years yes..
but life. This goes to show you that our government and most people don't have a clue of what a life is worth.
Rapists often only get 6 or 7 years in jail. I guess that is because politicians can easily commit rape, but they are too stupid to hack.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Choices.......
Like so many other Internet-related laws, Congress continues to consider the Internet as some US-only network. When I worked as a sysadmin, almost all hack attempts appeared to come from outside the US, particularly from European ISPs that refused to cooperate with any kind of investigation.
What will this really achieve? More minors receiving rediculous sentences becuase congresscritters saw too many stupid 80's hacker movies?
-- jason k.
This doesn't mean they're going to fill our prisons with script kiddies. I'm just assuming (hoping) that this life sentence will be used as a trump-card against organized crime and terrorism. They are probably having difficulty accusing people based on computer evidence, people who are involved in serious crimes that are a threat to public safety. This new legislation will just give them the court leverage to conduct proper prosecutions where they previously had little or no foothold.
But then we _are_ talking about the senate.. oh well. Let's hope for the best.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The neo-Luddites and the troglodites will call totally unrelated acts (such as the legitimate creation of non-commercial software,) as examples of hacking.
"Paranoid? Faced with the kid's 'New Math' when you never understood the 'old math? Don't like the neighbor, don't trust him and saw a funny looking box blinking in his basement?"
"Well call the toll-free HackerHotLine. The HHH. Two letters away from the old KKK. Seen a "bugaboo" on your street? We're on the look out for those too! Our operators are standing by!"
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but it costs in "paying attention" so we criminalize something instead of doing anything but the cheapest, fastest knee-jerk reaction and leave it all to "the experts."
Yeah. This is America! We gots freedom of speech here. Now shut the fuck up!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
What bothers me is the lack of a warrent for a wire tap.
there's some truth to that... one can use a mouse like a bolas... just get it swinging around a couple of times to get momentum up....
"House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers"
Is slashdot using that terminology too now? I guess it's now OK.
It's not about going to jail for life. It's about the fact that they are allowed to invade my privacy. If I make a joke to my friend about how I'm going to break his leg and they can wire tap me? c'mon! All of this stuff can be grabbed without a court order now: telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information. This is BS if we don't have the right to free speach what do we have the right to? It means to me that I now have to watch every word I say in an e-mail or fear that I will be tapped by the government. If we're not protectig our rights what's the point to protecting anything? Can anyone say 1984? Orwell was a little off on the date
The Only Person Willing to be Me is ME!
*sigh* ... /. public would want to these things correct.
OK, it's going to be modded down to "redundant" or something, but would anyone actually mind looking at the definition of these (again) misused terms,
It would take a days' worth of counting all the wrong quotations here, I would guess that a
The management thanks you
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
Well okay I can. But fortunately my representative Dennis Kucinich was one of three that voted against it. What can I say. I suppose I have to write him now to thank him for voting well.
n/t
Good thing one lives in Europe... at least until he starts bombing those countries who disagree with him (if you are not with me you are against me) which would be ok of course since the US love the idea of a war crimes tribunal.. as long as it only applies to the rest of the world
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This law is stupid because it leaves too much power to the witchhunting team. Think about it, you can get thrown in prison for life, just for the right arrangement of bits on your machine.
Yes, I know there are malicious hackers out there, and they should dealt with on a case-by-case analysis, but think how easily it could be for someone to be framed, then locked away, for God's sake. Shocked.
--the official, gun, badge and authority toting US government is STILL supporting islamic terrorism with their ongoing support of the KLA in Kosovo and with the bosnian islamic regime.
complete and utter hypocrisy.
The bush cartel are goose stepping lying nazi goons. And their dynastic family has a bona fide researchable history of being nazi sympathisers and serial liars and white collar criminals, if not worse. They are totally in favor of a blend of government and large corporations being "the government". Mussolini termed this "corporatism", but it has come down as the most popular meaning under the term "fascism".
Here's an example, we have a second amendment born-with right (NOT government granted, BTW) to keep and bear arms, this means own and carry. It's that simple. Yet, the bush cartel is firmly against airline pilots being armed, let alone lawful citizens. Lawfully armed pilots and some passengers would have stopped all those hijackings. This is just common sense. This is prima facie evidence of intent and the use of coercive force to DENY United States lawful citizens their born with rights, violating their constitutional oath of office, in other words, high treason. Their "solution" to skyjacking is to use air to air missiles to take down a hijacked plane.
You want more examples there are hundreds of them. These goons are forked tongue demons. Lying is as endemic with their cartel as it was with the clinton cartel. We have two criminal gangs-the democratic and republican "parties"- always fighting with each other to control the "turf" of the United States. Now they are fighting over who will control huge areas of the middle east and the oil and drugs produced there. That's what this "terrorism" war is about. The taliban were used, allowed to proceed in their attacks, in order to use the problem-reaction-solution formula governments have used to seize more control before, the classic example is the reichstagg fire that allowed hitler to assume similar powers to what this admin is seeking now. No different from the crips or bloods trying to control turf downtown someplace, just the scale is vastly larger. It hasn't made any difference in the overall outcome which gang is "in control" of the executive or legislative branches over the years, the results have been a steady forward push to more statism, more control by government, less accountability. It's just on overclocked speed right now.
The new homeland security brownshirt squads, the health measures act which will force you at gunpoint to accept injections of their poison, and forced relocation after their next phony "terrorist" attack which they orchestrate at the highest levels.
There's too much available evidence now with the mid level FBI agents coming forward and testifying about massive government prior knowledge, and how they were forced by higher level orders to NOT investigate and follow through. An air force officer only a few weeks from retirement has bravely come forward with his testimony. These people would not do this, sacraficing their careers and putting themselves in delibarate harms way if they weren't convinced these allegations were true, would they?
The biggest terroristic threat the US people face now is their own government. The 20th century proved without a doubt that the biggest terroristic threats people face around the world are their own governments. More people were killed delibarately by their own governments in the last century then the sum total of fatalities in warfare. The United States is not exempt from the time tested and proven dictum that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The US government is filthy corupt at the top levels. It's run by bribery, blackmail, threats, intimidation, lying and the use of terroristic threat force. And it's getting much worse now, and at an accelerated rate.
I waste no time on video games, this is my expertise and main interest. I don't code in any languages, but I spend hours daily reading and writing on this subject, and have for decades now. I do it after a long time ago being a victim of corrupt government, it changes you forever.
FEAR your government, local to federal, as they are criminals of the highest order, and assume the bulk of what they say is a lie, and you won't be far off.
How do you know which ones are gay? I suppose they splish a little more than they splash.
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
The only problem I have with this, is that there isn't any specific legislation covering screwdriver related crimes. It's sad that the government must create new laws to cover mis-understood tools used in the same crimes that were committed years ago.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
But far from perfect. Personally, I'm glad to see law moving toward stiffer real world penalties for hacking crimes. Hacking, distilled to it most basic element is breaking and entering. I don't give a shit if curiosity is your only crime; If you're going to break into somebody's electronic house and rifle through, steal and/or destroy somebody's electronic shit, you oughta get smacked down for it. And like breaking and entering, if you should happen to kill somebody through accident or intent (ie; somebody mentioned crashing an air traffic control network) during the act, you should face the real-world consequences everybody else faces. Do somebody actually believe a burgler or an arsenist is somehow justified for breaking into your home or destroying your property by saying tripe like or "curiosity is my only crime"? It's a load of BS and I'm happy to see real world penalties for it.
Like a few other people, this bill needs serious refinement before gtting passed into any sort. I'm all for anit-terrorism and such, but I'm starting to not like the trend in lacking checks and balances in the legistlation lately...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
send a ping, go to jail.
nobody
parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
That's the really scary part.
In other news, today the House approved a bill to
sentence CEOs of Software companies to life of hard labor in a penal colony for mediocre and expensive software. The 34,500,345,345th crash
of Windows OS in the House prompted the bill.
It is rumored that President Bush will no veto
the legislation. AP repots that Bill Gates has already purchased tickets to Barcelona, Spain,
but Catalan hackers are ready to give him a "warm"
welcome.
and this bill that passed the House is really weak. The tech industry doesn't want standards and so the DOJ isn't going to get them. Don't worry about this bill, even though it WILL pass the Senate before 2003.
The people of America overwhelmingly approve the removal -- by whatever means necessary -- of the American government. Stay tuned.
How? If you hack into a vital service system and it results in death, you die. simple. I like it.
I have never agreed with the hackers and what not.
Now, if we could only get the virus writters under the same law, we would be set. Of course, this would put half of the linux community in jail and on death row, but again... that's a bad thing?
get the mop & sawdust out
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
If a cracker can kill using the web then surely the site that allows that weakness should be considered at fault. If you blame the cracker then only American crackers are stopped and the life threatening sites feel safe. Therefore any anti-American person in another country can kill Americans with impunity.
It is lax security that is the real crime...
Most of this anti-cracker hype is just stupid. 99% of cracks are just grafitti, no worse than paint on the wall. It is hyped up as something serious but I have only heard of a few cases where it is anything more than that.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
While this bill is very worrying, given the increased power it gives to the DOJ (and that maniac Ashcroft...), it's not as bad as its made out to be. Basically, the extreme penalties are for those who knowingly commit acts that result in death or serious bodily injury. That only makes sense. Killing somebody by hacking into an important computer is just as bad as killing him any other way. Also, it increases the penalties for illegally intercepting electronic communications, which is a good thing. Maybe that clause can be used against the FBI and DOJ when they get a little too snoopy.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
This is so obviously an attempt to coerce l33t haxors to work for the govt after they are caught. I am sure that most of them would take a govt job and a nice payday to do the government's dirty work rather than be someone's bitch on CB4.
There is no way that the govt would let talent like that rot when they could be used to fight our own "cyber battles".
With commands like 'kill', 'killall', 'bash', 'dig', 'cut' and 'wipe' we have clearly frightened our legislators. And with commands like 'head', 'tail', 'latex' and 'gawk' they think we are perverts too.
Alright, Alright, I'm sorry. I was the one who crashed WorldCom. I hacked their gibson and looked in the garbage file using one of the 4 most commonly used passwords. In the garbage file i was able to find the worm. I disassembled their worm and found that it led to a machine called a 'WOPR' where i was able to backdoor that machine with the user 'Joshua' I almost started world war 3, until i had to help the govt out.
They then asked me to find a little black box, which i found at some math guys lab. It was easy. Until i found out what was on it, i could decrypt anything in the us! Thats when the shit hit the fan! I accidently gave the box to my old friend turned mafioso. But i was able to retrieve it before he could do any harm. and i gave it back to the nsa with a few gifts of course for the team of 'sneakers'.
Boy all this went on while i was battling an evil monopoly trying to control the media with his software. But i was able to grab their source code and distribute it over their own network of cable companies! While at the same time making a name for me and my friends!
Wow this has been a busy life for this 25 year old.
Ron Paul! Yeh man he is so awesome
"Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
;) ) popping under my browser will now be illegal? We might get SOME good out of this thing....
Does this mean those damn X-10 camera ads (which everyone knows people only buy stick in the girls locker room - surrpetitious surveilance.
Hmmmm, not that it appears that its going to be legal for the gov't to tap the internet, i wonder if they can hear what im saying right now? they probably already moniter it, but the second the damn bill is passed, i guarantee their gonna take advantage of it.......all kinds of arrrests and charges......communists
If you want to see all systems secure, you must submit to the industry lobbyists and make laws requiring Palladium. Then, as Microsoft says, everything will be secure, as only things Microsoft likes will make it onto the internet. Then it could be illegal to not run Palladium, or some compatible system, banning open source, hackers, and weak-security infrastructure all at the same time. A victory for all sides, right?
It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions. I pray that you will bring sanity and compasion back to the senate.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The knee jerk reaction is right. When they throw "knowingly or recklessly" into the same phrase, its a tough one to beat.
Say you hack a website, that website feeds a stock ticker on another site, and because you've changed the page that stock ticker now shows a zero value for that company's stock. Some investor sees it, and thinking his investments are now down the toilet, jumps out the window to his death.
Now, your hack wasn't really malicious, you didn't think it would cause anyone's death. That's where the "recklessly" comes in; you didn't think of every possible outcome of your actions, thus they were reckless. That's what the prosecution is going to argue. Once the prosecution paints you as reckless, then the jury is swung to their side.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
A prison full of 13 year olds....nice one america
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Somehow this seemed appropriate:
The Conscience of a Hacker
by Mentor
Written on January 8, 1986
Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...
Damn kids. They're all alike.
But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him,what may have molded him?
I am a hacker, enter my world...
Mine is a world that begins with school. I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...
Damn underachiever. They're all alike.
I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head."
Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer.
Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up.
Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.
And then it happened. A door opened to a world rushing through my phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found.
"This is it... this is where I belong." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all.
Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike.
You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals.
We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals.
We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all...
After all, we're all alike.
Copyright 1986 by Loyd Blankenship (mentor@blankenship.com). All rights reserved.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Try to tell that to a liberal.
Okay, I'm a liberal - try tell it to me.
I beleive that a gun is just a tool, and it's the people who pull the triggers that do the harm.
Also, I don't beleive there needs to be any sort of extra laws passed for the "special case" of when a gun is used.
I do, however, believe that you should need a license use a gun (in the same way that you need a license to drive a car). ... at least, not without special permits (much like you need a special class of license to drive a semi - you can't drive one with the same type of license you get to drive your car).
I also beleive that guns should be registered for the purposes of tracking ownership (in the same way you have to register a car).
I also beleive that some guns, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, should not be in the hands of the general public
Now, I'm a liberal and beleive these things - that except in the case of those who have done something to lose the right (such as commit murder or armed robbery), or have it be proven that it is an actual danger to allow the posession of a gun (a mental imbalance causing, for example, paranoia and violent tendancies), the government should never take away a person's right to own a gun.
Also, 90% of my friends, many of whom are liberals, beleive these things as well.
Now then, what exactly were you going to "try tell a liberal" again?
--The Rizz
"I belong to no organized party--I'm a Democrat." --Will Rogers
Using this logic, if I died trying to scale a cliff face on a mountain - its the mountains fault. We need to destroy the mountain because I was stupid enough to try and climb it?
Or should we be asking the question - why the frick did he try that - he had no skills.
If I was to hack into a hospital, screw up peoples medications (on purpose or by accident)- somehow this is the Hospitals fault? No!! If I wasnt trying to break in to where I have no business, and looking/screwing with stuff I shouldnt, no harm would have came to anyone.
It would be my fault and only my fault. Just because you can do a thing - doesnt mean you should do a thing. Hackers who do this kind of crap really need to remember that!
Of course - I dont agree to the Life in Prison if your a hacker either. Let the current laws determin the punishment based on what damage the asshole caused.
A man went into a novelty shop and saw an item that caught his fancy almost immediately. It was a stuffed rat. The man couldn't take his eyes off it, and finally asked how much it cost. The answer was "$79.95, but if you buy it, you can't return it for any reason." The man thought this was a bit odd, but he was really taken by the stuffed rat so he bought it.
As he headed down the street with the stuffed rat, several live rats started following him. He thought this was really odd, but he kept walking. Within a few blocks, he had a huge pack of rats behind him. When he got to the river, he threw the stuffed rat into the river, and all the live rats jumped into the river and drowned.
The man returned to the shop. As soon as he walked in, the owner said "I told you you couldn't return the stuffed rat!"
The man said "No! I don't want to return it! I was wondering if you had any stuffed lawyers."
Laugh (TM). =)
The pendulum swings, and we're heading to the age of complete political correctness, corporate control, and Rule By Lawyer.
Fireworks are labled to be "dangerous - emits flaming balls," etc., because some moron out there got the idea that he could get some money by sueing a company for his own stupidity. There will always be people like this, and we can't just kill them, so we must depend on the courts to drop cases such as this. But they don't.
(Note: Some things need to be labeled, e.g. coffee that is served 30-50 degrees hotter than usual, but this has all gone too far.).
Our freedom to sue others comes out of the idea that nobody is above the law and that a citizen can take matters into his own hands, through the courts, to earn his due (due to injury, theft, scams, etc.) to propagate good judgement over matters that might not be seen otherwise.
However, judges are now letting this get out of hand. As the parent poster said, 'intelligent law' is gone. Judges and lawyers feel a responsibility to the people to fix all matters, trivial or not, under the impression that they must fix the wrongs of the world. At least that's how I see it.
I suggest we all take special interest in the judicial system and those we elect to it, directly or otherwise.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
That's easy... Representatives are more interested in getting re-elected than actually doing the country any good. Computer oriented laws are today what gun control laws were a decade or so ago: quick, easy opportunities for representatives to make it look like they're doing something really good when in fact it's all a bunch of crap.
When politicians start getting unpopular you'll see lots of "buzzword" bills being pushed through Congress. Right now Capitol Hill is the focal point of major flamage with the lameness of our defenses against terrorism and the way the White House appears to be slapping CEOs on the wrist and setting them free after they've effectively collapsed our economy. I'm sure more "buzzword" bills are on their way...
It's illegal to murder.
It's more illegal to murder with a gun.
It's even more illegal to murder with a stolen gun.
It's even more illegal to murder with a stolen gun on school grounds.
The shit still happens. They know that.
MURDERERS are CRIMINAL who don't mind breaking one law, why would they mind breaking more than one law.
This isn't about murder. This is about upgrading involuntary manslaughter to murder.
i.e. I hack something and someone dies without this law in effect, I get tried for 70 counts of involuntary manslaughter because I didn't know the hospital was tied to the same power block I shut down causing 70 people in the ICU to die.
With this law, same scenario, I get tried for 70 counts of murder.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps now we will have laws that those guilty of corporate or government frauds can be sentenced to life in prison too.
When are they going to declare misreporting multi-billion dollars profit treason?
If the damage illegal hacking warrants life in prison, then the damage a corporation makes to the overall US economy warrants death by firing squad. Not to mention that affecting the economy directly affects the national security of a nation.
A week ago I thought that would be extreme, but apparently it isn't.
My question is, when will the RIAA and MPAA have the government declare mp3/divx illegal computer hacking and put us all in jail for life.
What is scary is that it is now a possibility.
Okay...this is going to sound a little silly...but in the process of looking over this bill...I've come to the conclusion...the thomas.loc.gov needs to update its records a little bit and insert some links to the related bills. I know it's possible to read these and then go do a search for the corresponding bill/section/subsection/etc, but wouldn't it make things a little easier to see a statement like "excemption from Federal Advisory Committee Act..." to have a link to same document? I know they have a section for references, but why not include them...
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Every time these sh*t sucking bastards do ANYTHING, it takes away someones rights and puts more people in prison, I think our new national anthem should be the "Darth Vader theme" from the original Star Wars, a good match for the Facist dictatorship we now live in!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
If I kill someone by hitting them over a kead with a palm piolt, is it any different from hacking there car and causing there breaks to fail, or just cutting hte break cable..
NO...
Well, actually, a blow to the kead might be very well untraceable. I'm sure if you ask most forensic pathologists they wouldn't begin to know how to detect any damage to a kead.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Just another expression of how the US legal system has departed from reality.
Hack an Internet business, cost them a million bucks, get set to prison for life. Defraud shareholders of a couple of billion, lose your right to server on the board of directors of a US company.
It's nice to see that our country has its priorities so straight. If you're a hacker who embarrasses a large company, you get life in prison. But if you're the CEO of a large company who cooks the books and devastates the retirement of hundreds of thousands of people, well, that'll get you 10 years.
Whew, it's a good thing those giant corporations have the public's best interests in mind! Imagine where we'd be if they got greedy and abused their power! Oh, wait...
The flipside is that every time an already-illegal act is singled out like this, it somehow becomes "worse" than the same act committed by other means or for other reasons, and therefore likely to garner a more-extreme penalty. Which itself introduces a slew of legal loopholes -- and negates the concept of "equal justice under the law".
It should be *equally* illegal to murder someone because you're pissed at them, or because you hate little green men from Alpha Centauri and it's your mission to cleanse them from the universe, or because your l33t hacking skills let you change some luser's medical records so they receive a lethal dose of drugs. One method or motive should not be considered "worse" than any other, nor penalized differently -- unless of course the victim winds up *deader* because it's a "hate crime" or a "cyberterrorism attack".
Lessee.. if slaying in anger leads to the victim being 100% dead, slaying for hate must result in him being 200% dead; a cyberterrorist's victim must be what, 500% dead?? That might be relevant if it affects your chances of being resurrected by the New You Shop, but not in today's real world.
It seems to me that what's really being done when "hate crimes" and "cyberterrorism" are singled out for special treatment, is not that the crime is being punished, but rather that society's degree of "personal outrage" is being compensated. But personal outrage should not be allowed to affect justice; when it does, justice becomes a lynch mob.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Either one of the senators flipped out and started beating the others with his mouse.
--OR--
Mix a good little ol' fashioned FUD with some terriorist paranoia, and top with a good healthy portion of stupidity.
This law is clearly unnecessary!
Star Pirates
First - define "malicious". I have to assume only a capital offense applies. I seriously don't see chip-mods on a Playstation or X-box as the target.
Second - Even if the law is on the books, life sentences ain't gonna happen. Johny Walker struck a plea and got 20 years, and his crimes are easier to convict on than a computer crime.
Our prison system isn't going to handle it. "What'cya in for?" "DeCSS"
Third - There are two other branches that vote on this before it becomes a law. The Senate will water this down.
No, this law would go after someone who takes down a 911 system during a terror attack, or something that has a real-world, tangable impact leading to lives lost.
Why don't they pass a bill to give spammers life in jail??
Posing as 31337 h4x0r5.
Releasing some h4x0r tools for script kiddies.
Then creating a "security company" for
"fixing" the security holes induced by said tools.
Better stay with the pros and not such
bigot "wannabe security experts".
Well, I for one am very dissatisfied with the new "protective" laws that are being passed. It seems that the government is more apt to protect corporations rather then it's tax paying citizens!
According to Merriam-Webster, here is the defination of hacker: Main Entry: hacker Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : one that hacks 2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity 3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer 4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system So, the Slashdot title could aslo mean a law on programming, being unskilled, or coughing!
One funny thing is this bit in the m$nbc article:
Smith heads a subcommittee on crime, which held hearings that drew endorsements of CSEA from a top Justice Department official and executives from Microsoft and WorldCom.
WorldCom execs? Haven't they themselves caused some economic instabitlty recently?
So, according to the US House of Reps, hackers are a serious threat to economic stabitlity but dodgy accountants are just a minor threat? When has any hacker been able to bring about the levels of economic instabilty brought about companies like WorldCom, Enron and Andersen?
It's the accountants, lawyers and politicians of this world who are the serious threat to the economy - not hackers.
Tk
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
...It could happen.
They could make it a felony for not-complying.
There could be a background check done first, just like there is now for guns.
can't wait...
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
So can free speech. Ban it immediately.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Of course this was stolen from the quote where the word "Computers" is replaced by "Guns." Of course it doesn't matter what you kill someone with, it's still bad.
Another thing I don't understand, is why Attempted Murder doesn't have exactly the same penalty as actual Murder. Just because you aren't very good at it, doesn't mean you shouldn't be held as responsible.
Squeek? SQUEEEEEEEEEK!!!!! *splat* (I know, I know, it's the computer mouse.. but this was the first thing I thought of when I read it)
hmmm...
I'm sure they missed more than 7 errors.
first sentence 'last' [1] indefinite reference, used as definite reference in sentence two 'that' and in the third paragraph 'next'(though the 'next' is unclear[1.5] mainly do to the separation of context from 'last' in the first sentence.)
The first two sentences of the second paragraph have over repetition [2.5] and over use of self centric words[3.5]
[4.5] inconsistency, you can do a bad piece of writing so long as it is bad all the way through. Inconsistency shows that you know how to do things correctly but can't be bothered to do so.
[5.5]There are a few paragraphs made up of very short sentences, this breaks the rhythm and makes reading more dificult[6.5] and a number of sentences should have there order reversed.
I can't be bothered doing there leg work...
Remember how heavy keyboards used to be. You could easily kill someone with those.
We live in what century? Why do we still have witch scares? Every time a new technology comes along that the general populus dosen't understand congress treats it like a form of magic, and passes laws to burn the witches.
Existing laws already deal with every form of crime against one's neighbor: murder,rape, assult, theft, child abuse, kidnapping, abuse/misuse of someone's property, behaving in a reckless manner, and civil suits. Also, good laws focus on the effect and intent of one's actions and not cause. Murder is when you kill someone. Death by poison, hanging, shooting, or hacking (Killer Robots? Mutant Gerbils?) is irrelivant.
It is time for a constitututional ammendment against witch burning. That is the only way congress will stop trying to battle the black arts, and start focusing on running the country.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
it really isn't suprising, since corporate crime, which is the most devistating type of criminal activity, next to state sponsored murder/terror (of which the US has done plenty of). white collar crime causes whole cities workforces to become unemployed, whole habitats destroyed, causes thousands of people harm. this is the normal effect. yet, prison sentence rarely occurs, because these crimes are rarely investigated.
put the hacker away who caused a few companies to lose a few thousand dollars and gave a bitch slap to a few Management types who don't believe in funding security and appropriate data backups. someone who destroys a rainforest should get a slap on the wrist and a nice 10 million dollar bonus for making the company more profitable.
yippy :)
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!! They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa To the funny farm. Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!!!
Would James Byrd be any less dead if he were not black? Would James Byrd be any less dead if his killers were not white?
The answer to both of these questions is no. He would still be dead, and the crime that was committed on him would be equally as heinous.
We don't need a "hate crimes" law that will do nothing but give lawyers, activists, and politicians who harbor agendas an excuse to declare that some [murders|assaults|whatever] are more important than other [murders|assaults|whatever].
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
For good behavior, if she can manage that.
What a crock.
As the owner of the gun, are you at all responsible? After all, you knew that a gun could be used to harm someone. You also knew that leaving a loaded weapon unattended in public view could lead to it being stolen, yet you left it on the porch for the world to see and be tempted by anyway.
Having somebody die as a result of your actions is a "forseeable consequence" of your action.
Now lets go back to traffic lights...
Knowing that drivers go on green and stop on red, somebody who engineers a traffic light system that can be easily re-programmed by "the wrong crowd" to leave all lights green should be able to reasonably forsee this sort of security breach leading to deaths.
Why is leaving your life/death technology unsecured any different than leaving your Smith & Wesson
Or, to go "class warfare" on your ass...
Why is the white collar engineer NOT responsible for deaths he should be able to reasonably forsee? We've put ghetto youths to death/life imprisonment for starting a robbery where the clerk shoots a customer while shoorting at him [the thief], so why aren't the wealthy engineers responsible for the "forseeable consequences" of their actions?
Who did what now?
'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Really.
Can anyone come up with a single instance where this this actually true? I can't. I am fairly sure that no mouse (or keyboard for that matter) has killed anyone all year.
Its got to pass the Hill man... and it ALSO has to get past Bush. We'll see.
If you're a computer criminal, wether a little kid playing at being like Dade Murphy, or a true criminal who wants to get a few thousand, you go to jail for the rest of your life.
If you're a big CEO of a company, and you do things like give yourself low-interest (or no-interest) loans out of company coffers (which you repay or not, depending on if you resign or the company goes out of business), or you do wonderful accounting methods which mark things like your garbage as income, you get (wait for it): 5 years in jail. I recall reading about a bill which would toughen it to 10 whole years in jail.
Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but quite a few 3 and 4 billion dollar accounting errors seem a little more serious (especially considering how businesses are all connected and eating each other all the time) than some kid unleashing another Nimda variant. Why not have tough sentences for fraud and corruption? Why not start with crimes that are occuring right now, crimes which (if unchecked) could ruin any good financial news for at least a decade? Do we want a repeat of the 1930s?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
"police can conduct internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order"
this is the reasion the law was made, to sneek that in, other than that it is not needed.
"Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication.""
I am very tired of those ads popping up all the time - although I don't recall seeing one recently - I used to get them all the time.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
That is a different matter, for this reason - chances are that nobody would leave a life-and-death system WIDE OPEN. I have to assume here that it has some level of security. To use your analogy, that gun owner would have it locked in a cabinet in his house, but someone broke in, picked the lock, and stole the gun. Now, is the gun owner AS RESPONSIBLE as the person who stole it and used it to kill someone?
Why is leaving your life/death technology unsecured any different than leaving your Smith & Wesson .45 unsecured?
Unsecured is not the same as something being secured, but compromised. And with physical as well as computer systems, there are resonable levels of security that should be expected.
Why is the white collar engineer NOT responsible for deaths he should be able to reasonably forsee? We've put ghetto youths to death/life imprisonment for starting a robbery where the clerk shoots a customer while shoorting at him [the thief], so why aren't the wealthy engineers responsible for the "forseeable consequences" of their actions?
Wow, that is quite a stretch, but I think we are talking about two different things here. For one, there is no single responsible person for many white collar crimes. With software, who is responsible - the designer, the developer, the project manager, the QA staff, the 3rd party vendor, etc.? No one person can be blamed for less-than-optimally secure software. However, most "hands on" crimes are more clear cut. How about wealthy CEOs who steal and rob money from employees and investors? Now there is a better analogy, those a-holes have ruined more than a few lives. (oh, but it is the auditors fault, or the CFO) But if found guilty, they won't be given life in prison, I can guarantee you. And wherever they serve, it probably won't be much of a prison. So I agree with you there. But compare robbery to robbery, it is a little easier to see the correlation.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
this is just like the 10-round magazine law. It doesn't do anything usefull, it just gets people used to the concept that this sort of thing should be regulated by law. Wait about 5 years, and then this bill's successors will be there to regulate every packet.
Sitting Walrus Blog
"... or had the effect..."
I am always concerned about a law that could get someone put on trial for an accident. If I write a piece of code that accidently causes all traffic lights to go green, should I be put in jail?
what if it is misused?
Should there be civil action? yes, but thats different.
OTOH if Win XP causes critical systems to crash, will MS be put on trial?
My concern is not how members of government would treate this bill, its how corporation could use this bill in a very twisted way.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the point, I think, is that for any of this to apply you first have to be accessing some system without authorization.
So you broke into some system and didn't MEAN to turn out the power to the life support units in the hospital.. it was because of shoddy configuration. What is there to understand? You weren't supposed to be there.
If you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing, and that has consequences you didn't plan on/intend for, then who's fault is it? Yours.
Life sentences for lesser crimes already exist... For example, in many states you can server a life sentence (without parole) for growing of marijuanna. Hundreds of men are serving life sentences in prision for that right now. That seems to harm far fewer people than hacking.
Someone raised this point in another post earlier. The reason a new law seems to be needed is jurisdiction. It's very hard to work out which jurisdiction a hacking crime happens in. At least that's what I've seen in the cases I've read about. If a hacker causes death or serious injury, then the crime falls under state murder/manslaughter/negligence laws. Only problem is which state? This bill will give prosecutors the legal ablity to stick such offenders with a sentence that matches the crime. Or at least that's the theory put forward for public consumption. With the crap that the rest of this bill puts forward, I'm not sure I even buy the one sensible point in the whole thing.
The taliban is not a nice group of people - they have no respect for human rights, treat women as chattel, and like to persecute anyone who isn't a Muslim. If Bush has tried to provide evidence, the Taliban would have just played games about how they "weren't convinced". Bull. The United States does not answer to the whims of criminal regimes - they answer to *us*. The taliban was given a chance to comply with the demands of the United States, and they declined to comply. Getting bombed into tiny little bits is no worse than what they deserve.
I'm the stranger...posting to
People become terrorists because they are terrified. A Muslim whose education at a madrasas has consisted totally of reading the Koran for its power, is terrified by the powers we in the West gain from our books and films and (relatively) free communnications, so, terrified, they seek to return the terror to what they see as its source.
When I was training typical office workers in using computers back in the 80s, the most difficult hurdle was that most of them were terrified that the computer was sentient enough to become offended if they did something 'stupid' and intentionally punish them for their mistakes. Just as Muslims see a god in their book, even 'modern' Americans tend to see gods in their boxes - and both are terrified that those gods will punish them if they stray, even in ignorance, from their presumed commandments.
And now the Congress is terrified of computer networks, and seeks to terrorize those who appear to be favored by special powers by the new network gods, who must be made fearful of Congress's powers lest they reach out through the networks to strike them dead.
Lesson: Anyone whose power source is different from your own is guilty of witchcraft (whether that source is more or less advanced than yours makes little difference - thus 'modern' medicine derides 'witch doctors'). Since that witchcraft terrorizes you, you must hold the witches in check by terrorizing them in return. This is all simple anthropology.
Sometimes the witches (fundamentalist Muslims) are trying to kill you; sometimes they (sysadmins) aren't. The key to maximizing peace is overpowering the first group either with new culture or, if that fails, with containment or death; and overpowering your own paranoia regarding the second group, by whatever means are available. The tricky part comes if our own Congress continues towards behavior equivalent to that of fundamentalist Muslims. Our first course should be to ease their paranoia.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Well I can see i'm on the right side by liking microsft.
Life for hacking.
Up to a million dollar fine, 4 years in a country club prison and you get to keep your 100 million dolar bonus after your 50 billion dollar company goes bankrupt wiping out thousands of pensions.
Seems fair to me:)
Of course, for the purposes of this diatribe I am assuming that the term "malicious hacking" will be used against many hackers that are caught. If you break into any government computer, then you will be charged with malicious hacking.
Ah, more of the same application of practical justice. The violent, poor, young and essentially weak have the best chance of being imprisoned. The use of violence is touted as justification for all of that internment, and the public goes along with it even though scads of poor, young and weak folk are caught up in the net.
Now, malicious hackers are being added to this social targeting zone. They qualify as young and weak (nerdy, loner).
Meanwhile, corporate executives and directors are walking away from the ruins of the companies whose demises they specifically engineered. The economic damage is even more obvious than before, when I started noticing the corporate scams of the 1970s and beyond. The damage done is far in excess of anything done while hacking, individually or collectively. But the criminals in these company-crashing cases are enormously wealthy and as such are untouchable -- after all, the justice system is designed to attack the poor.
There is even a common feeling -- deluded and immensely ignorant, if not outrightly stupid -- that since no violence was done, no serious crime occurred in these corporate scams. We find the President mouthing off about doubling prison terms, which is pretty funny since little if any prison time is seen by these corporate criminals. (He might as well have quintupled the prison times for every Three-Eyed Wahoojibber Beast that is caught.) And even if imprisoned, they have millions stashed away for resuming their high living after they come out of their country-club (remember, they are not violent criminals) prisons. And -- oh yes, sarcasm time has arrived -- doubling a prison time from 18 months to 36 is really going to reform those hidden millionaires.
Life imprisonment for malicious hackers! -- while Ken Lay and his ilk fly across America in chartered jets looking for more economies to destroy. If you don't see that America has no sense of priorities, then you just aren't looking.
[also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
Damn! I wish I had the lyrics to the Simpsons' verion of that...an Amendment to be!
A live performance of 1984, coming to a living room near you:
Associated Press (NYTimes link)
Operation TIPS
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Ahh yes people have died from software viruses for years.
Microsoft is being sued for the deaths of millions of loved ones due to software defects.
This stinks like more of that "Terrorist use encryption so ban encryption" garbage.
Terrorists use paper and I can make a paper knife. Muahaha watch we kill with paper cuts...
Well... it makes as much sence.
I don't actually exist.
Um, hello? Flamebait? Oh yeah, the American prison system is just chalk full of thirteen year old hackers. Not just a dumbass, but and uninformed dumbass at that.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Look at who cosponsored the bill. Many of them are hardcore democrats. Shiela Jackson was the only congressperson to oppose supporting the administration's plans for Afghanistan, but I guess throwing the curious into prison for life is ok by her.
Spoken words can be as dangerous as a bullet or bomb depending on the sitaution, but censorship is only morally justifiable dpending on the circumstance. One of our basic values is that punishment should match the crime... and I have yet to see hacking cost one human life, and if it did shouldn't the assailant be charged with murder or manslaughter instead? Wouldn't there be public outcry if we sent 19 year old burglars to jail for life? This is insanity.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Please god don't make be become a fucking political activist.)
Seriously.....what we need is a group like "People who are pissed off about all the crap that's going on, but definately aren't asswipe hippie activists"
Terrorist: used by people to indicate other people that say or do things that the first group of people doesn't approve of, doesn't understand or isn't receiving any money for or fight for any cause not sponsored by said people
War on terrorism: The act of violating every basic human right of terrorists.
Peace: A situation where all terrorists are either dead or in prison.
Hacker (refered to as cracker from here forth) cracks M$ and distribute windows source code to everyone.
people realize how awfully written windows *really* is, and everyone switches to linux / BSD / OSX;
bill and steve shoot themselves...
you think they'd give out life sentence for that?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Your beloved president made an outcry about the state of human rights and oppression of the people in Iran last week and demanded more freedom for them. Meanwhile back at the ranch, corporate executives can now go to jail for a whole, shocking 10 years after having robbed and cheated tens of thousands of people out of their jobs and the life savings, and some lonely, socially ostracised teenager can go to jail for life for mucking with Bill's personal pr0n server.
If things carry on like this, what is the rest of the world going to do with all those political refugees from the USA?
Slashdot's readers have been mysteriously dissappearing
Screwdriver Abuse Prevention Act
So if I'm following this correctly this law allows authorities to monitor your computer activity if they have any desire to do so, without legal recourse on their actions.
Further, it compels ISPs to freely divulge personal information, by law, without court orders.
I fail to see how this law does anything other than give the government a free hand up your skirt. If a court order is not required, any official can by law, obtain personal information about you and tap into your business without legal recourse by you even if the act was unwarranted.
Theoretically, I could call an ISP, pretend to be an officer and get whatever personal information I want.
"Ooops Mr. Innocent guy, we didn't mean to snoop... but the law says we can, if we feel like it... and we did."
With the dust still settling from enron, worldcom and other failed conglomerates, it seems that most of the greedy fat cats involved in these corporate heists won't get much but a small fine ($250,00 of $15M = 1 less ivory coated rolls royce). Dubya's latest bone for the American public, corporate thievery. Where is the justice in imprisioning one person for their whole LIFE when 1,000's of CEO's and insider stock traders have made hundreds of millions of dollars by misleading their hard-working employees and shareholders? In the last 10 years it seems like bills and laws are made by rickety old farts who can't tell the difference their ass and their ass.
lay face down on the ground, and put your hands behind your head!" I dunno, with this new bill, I'll finally be able to plug in my USB Sentry Gun and not need to worry about potential hackers killing all my co-workers and leaving me with 32 counts of murder one for negligence! A mouse is just as dangerous? Well, yeah. I could simply beat everyone to death with this thing. I suppose they shouldn't allow mice on airplanes now, either. Hell, you could hijack an airplane from your laptop without ever leaving your seat. Wire tapping. How exactly does wiretapping my phone and broadband without just cause make me feel more secure than when they weren't? Quite frankly, I don't trust the US government anymore than a man on a plane with a mouse, i mean a gun. And what happens when some guy working for the air traffic controller is running routine tests on their network, oops, unintended typo, planes go down by the dozen. Total mishap, (catastrophic yes). Does the agency claim liabilty or does Joe Schmo get 99 for malicious hacking after federal prosecution?
We never believed in a criminal solution to government security problems. Our testimony recommended software vendors fixing their products not to increase the number of cybercops or to increase penalties.
If you find out that the homes in your neighborhood are getting broken into because there are no locks on the doors do you hire more cops or do you make sure people have locks. It is common sense.
So NIPC was formed before we testified and you are blaming us for it? Did you read our testimony? It was not FUD. It was actual vulnerabilities that we knew about. I hope you are not suggesting that we had published how to take down the internet in 30 minutes.
-weld
It's honestlly sad when "for the people, by the people", means nothing more than that our government can control our lives without our consent. They make decisions that put people away for a lifetime for doing nothing more than looking somewhere they might not normaly be allowed, not even hurting or stealing things. More and more our government feels that it has the responsibility to decide everything for us and the fact that they can bypass all sorts of civil liberties, like being able to tap phones without reason, track web activities, search employee databases, to name a few, worries me conciderably. Why doesn't anyone stand up? Do you risk looking like a terrorist for standing up for your rights? Is fighting the unlimited government/congress support of the people against anti-terrorism, that is obviously taking things too far, so wrong? The power-grabbing government/congress of anti-terroristic, super-hero lore is going too far. The "hacker" that they're putting away for life has no option. No case by case basis or verdict. In effect, no trial. According to the EFF, specifically the lawyers working on the 2600 DeCSS/DMCA case, the judges don't understand in the least bit about computers in their most basic sense, but the are putting people away for their entire lifetime. It's time that we do something, or they are going to take away free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, or conciderably worse.
God can get pretty pissed sometimes....
The Free Congress Foundation, which opposes CSEA, criticized Monday evening's vote.
Congress should stop chipping away at our civil liberties," said Brad Jansen, an analyst at the conservative group. "A good place to start would be to substantially revise (CSEA) to increase, not diminish, oversight and accountability by the government."
See? Even the conservatives are beginning to be up in arms over this organized assault on citizens' liberties.
This is what happens when (clueless) politicians try to regulate something that they know SQUAT about!
The new law would "Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads."
...
Would that apply to all those tiny wireless cameras that fit anywhere? I hate those ads. Maybe this law is a good thing, after all
Now that we all know that having an affair is more serious than cooking the books.
Bush purposes that CEO's that steal hundreds of millions of dollars, who crushes the lives of thousands of people, and topple corporations large enough to effect the entire US economy should not be allowed to head up a company again but a teenager who defaces a web site should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
What's wrong with this picture?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Makes me embarrassed to live in Texas.
Seriously, what are these morons thinking? And what kind of morons do they think we are?
So, how many people could you kill with a mouse if you flew it into a high rise building?
How many people would be killed when a mouse is detonated in front of a building in OKC?
Yes, it's a metaphor, but it's a remarkably studid one. Yes, let's give somebody life in prision because he hacked www.hot-wet-sluts.com. Uh-huh. Even hacking www.yahoo.com, www.cnn.com or even www.whitehouse.gov, how does that even begin to compare to killing people?
Maybe somebody needs to introduce these guys to the business end of a keyboard ...
The Hackers Manifesto Translation Guide
Copyright 2002 by Mulletproof. All rights reserved, Callahan!
"Hi. I'm Tommy. I'm a smart boy. You see, I have this skill called "lock picking". Maybe you've heard of it. One of my smart friends got caught yesterday trying to use his skills to get into a bank. Silly guy. It's all over the paper-- "Teenage boy tries to break into bank!" So cool.
"The grown-ups just don't understand. They don't understand what makes me tick. School is boring but luckily I have my lock picking set and friends with lock picking sets of their own. Instead of paying for TVs and electronics we just take em. Why bother, right? After all, they just mark it up anyway. The grown-ups just don't understand. Heck, they don't need to make that money anyway. We explore (illegly, homes, offices, stores, etc) and they call me a criminal. We seek after knowledge (rummaging through other people's belongings without permission) and they call me a criminal. I don't understand. I don't see what the big fuss is about. After all, "they" build atomic bombs, wage wars, murder, and cheat, so can't I break into your house at night? We're all even, right? I just want to look. I'm just a poor, curious, misunderstood boy. You can trust me.
~
MY crime is judging people by what thay say and think, and judging from what good ol Loyd says and thinks, the Hackers Manifesto is nothing but a shit-poor excuse to rationalize his actions because of the "evils of the world". "Since I have the skill and tools, I have a right to break into your house/business and do whatever the fuck I want." Even if it is simply "curiosity". "I'm curious about what is inside your home. I think I'll break in while you're out tonight. Who knows... If I don't like what I find (which is really none of my business in the first place), I'll destroy your house."
The Hacker's Manifesto: Self righteousness masquerading as intelligence. Is this harsh? Yeah. Are all hackers this self-dillusional? No. Thankfully, not all of them buy into this brain-washed BS. Sure the the public education system caters to the mjority of people with average intelligence. Sure you may have had a poor childhood for any number of reasons, including said system. But don't kid yourself in hiding behind curiosity so you can violate other peoples rights because you're more special than they are.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I think the analogy was quite appropriate. I have a right to ensure that anyone in my community owning a dangerous item knows how to -- and intends to -- use it safely. If you can't drive responsibly, you don't deserve to drive. If you can't use a gun responsibly, you don't deserve to have one. In other words, call it priviledge or right, it's the same: you only get to have it if you are responsible and safe with it.
If you decide to consciously kill people, you can do so with either the gun or car. That's covered by basic manslaughter laws. But if you aren't trained to use a gun or car safely, you should not be allowed to own one. I don't feel you have more of a right to own either one more than the other if you can't be trusted to be responsible and safe.
I've seen many drivers that I feel should have their licenses revoked for driving so poorly. I don't care if that's your livelihood if you are more likely to kill someone by driving -- take the bus or make other arrangements.
Similarly, I've read some stories (no first-hand knowledge thankfully) of people who stored their firearm irresponsibly or were careless and killed someone. They probably never considered the safety issue beyond the simplistic test you take for a license (I passed it after twenty minutes of skimming through the booklet, though I had been firing handguns for many years).
I've heard that driving tests in Germany are far more difficult than in America, and that's sad given how many fatal accidents there are each year in the U.S. I also feel the gun license should have a stricter test, but then again there are far fewer accidental gun deaths than car fatalities, so I'd make the driving test harder first. I was more surprised that I wasn't required to actually operate a gun to get a license to own one. Of course, you don't have to drive on the freeway during the test (never over 35 mph really) yet you're still licensed for freeway driving.
This seems backwards until you look at congress's history. 400,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses each year, yet tobacco is legal. Marijuana is illegal, yet to date there have been zero (0) cases of marijuana-related illness deaths. Go figure.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Look, it's very simple: you (plural, that means everyone--myself included) do NOT have any rights whatsoever to perform malicious actions using a computer against anyone for any reason. That's what this law says. Any one of you claiming otherwise is WRONG. If you feel that *somehow* you do have the right, you're already screwed up in the head ("Friggin' in the riggin'!") Some of you said that any system that is critical (nuclear power, 911 systems, Armed forces, etc.) should not be connected to the Internet...hello recall DARPA? Who was "here" first? Not you, bucko. Sorry, if anything, it is YOU who do not deserve to be connected to the Internet. Your logic is faulty, people. Don't break in to systems, don't disrupt communications, don't plot against others and you'll be fine. Bunch of paranoid "gimme" freaks is all you are. Can't deal with the truth?! Get out.
That would only work if the perpetrator left the gun at the scene. AFAIK gun registration is linked to a registration number etched into the gun (slide or barrel, I do not know). Now, if you have the gun you can test to see if it fired a bullet you found at the crime scene (unless this is total movie fantasy), but I doubt you'd be able to create a database of barrel markings that would be searchable like fingerprints. And if you could, people would just buy new barrels on the black market.
That being said, I'm still torn on gun registration. You already need to have a license to own a handgun (not shotgun and some rifles, correct?), so basically there's a list of people likely to own a gun. The only thing I really care about is that anyone owning or using a gun has been cleared on safety issues and that they are not "likely" to use it for crime. "Likely" currently is determined by whether or not they have a felony record and are sane, IIRC.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Curiousity is my only crime! I'm just curious, that's all! Just like an arsenist is curious about fi-- Oops. too close to home, right?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
What do you mean catch? We already have similar laws in the draft stage.
:)
If you can find your MP and ask them, they can tell you. Unfortunatly my MP is occasionaly hard to find, usually about the any time something intresting comes along and I might come down and badger him over.
But the rest of your points are good and vaild
Om, nomnomnom...
And like breaking and entering, if you should happen to kill somebody through accident or intent (ie; somebody mentioned crashing an air traffic control network) during the act, you should face the real-world consequences everybody else faces
Or did you miss that part of my comment and the legislation?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
If a mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb, then I guess that means a bash shell could be considerd a WMD under the right circumstances.
- My Blog - http://www.memestreams.net/users/rattle/
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
A bit. Thanks for asking ^__^
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Amen. This is one of the many reasons why I don't bother with gun mags. Other reasons: I got sick of the T&A adverts (not that I'm not looking, but come on, if you need a blonde wearing next to nothing to get my attention, your product must not be that exciting); Massad Ayoob has gotten boring; I can usually get better information on what's coming down the pipe from gossip at the range.
The best gun mag I've seen is American Rifleman. It caters to me as a shooter, period. It doesn't make stupid assumptions about my other political opinions. Hell, sometimes I think Charleton Heston is doing a better job of attacking the Police State than the so-called liberals in Congress. Just the fact that I get this mag once a month is worth the price of NRA membership.
Finding God in a Dog
Actually, this law is a good thing. We just need to lobby our various congresscritters to amend the bill to read "spammers" instead of "hackers" before it gets passed into law, and we'll be all set 8)
The "rep from TX" is Lamar Smith (R-TX) from San Antonio. yourcongress.com and opensecrets.org are good starting points if you are willing to actually do something to stop these ridiculous laws.
when everything is working perfectly.. BREAK SOMETHING before something else FUCKS up!
The CSEA is more of an attempt to increase Bush's ratings through redundant legislation than anything else. This complements his obscure actions and vague speeches well. However, the bill appears to be well-intentioned, and I would have no complains if it were passed.
The point about how the bill "also expands police ability to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order" is misleading. The article later almost revokes this claim by stating the "kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information--not the contents of online communications or telephone calls", clearly nothing that threatens one's civil liberties or privacy. I doubt the same government that funds a sleazy trojan project (ahem... Magic Lantern) would even stick to such stringent liberty-friendly guidelines (as described in the bill).
The Texan representative's attempted usage of synechdoche ('mouse' referring to a 'computer') is humorous indeed, but it simply cannot compete with Al Gore's 'invention' of the internet. Most importantly, I would like to address the horrible choice of the title (CNet is purely to blame for this one). "House OKs life sentences for hackers"... at first sight it suggests that Mussolini has taken over and Mitnick's going back to the slammer (maybe they'll give him an quick trial this time). The fact is far from that, this bill simply reiterates that if anyone tries to commit murder, they shall face dire consequences, regardless of what tools were used.. a knife, an airplane, or a computer. (However, the 'life sentence' penalty isnt going to threaten a group of people that dont seem to value life very much.)
The problem with this legislation is not that it violates civil liberties, but its apparent lack of practicality, redundancy, and the kind of ridiculous legislation that it may open doors to ("virtual trespassing" treated the same as its physical counterpart? "internet traffic violations" if you request a flashy web page too many times?).
This leads us back to the title of my critique, a cloud with silver lining or silver in a cloud? Maybe its just another puff of smoke from Washington...
If the government is given all of this broad sweeping power without any checks, what is next? Do you have national secrets on your computer? Are you hiding kiddie porn? I dont know, then again neither would you if the feds knocked in your door and said you did. With that said, how much power do you as a single un-represented citizen have when in a dark room filled with feds. People are against this bill and bills like it because of the complexity and ambiguous nature of the bill. It is written to fluster and confuse the layman. You think that by supporting the bill you are helping to protect us and to protect systems, when in reality you are further binding our wrists.
Make no mistake our lives are getting more and more restricted in this great country of ours. I dont support nor respect crackers and what they do, but I can look at the big picture. I would ask the security mavens what they think, what they would wish.
In my opinion I think they would love to see harsher punishment for the crackers, though perhaps not to the extent that is implemented by the bill. To be sure, they would also not want anything to hinder privacy and freedom on the internet and abroad. The internet was designed for freedom, for developmental growth, and for everyone.
Stop being another cog in the bureacratic machine.
tool
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
But the truly pathetic problem with this is that, while it might offer a significant deterrent against DoS and other malicious attacks, the fact that Congress is even considering a bill like this, and still haven't introduced something along the same lines for huge Corporate thieving and shananagans, is utterly asenine.
Look at it this way, hacking usually is malicious toward large corporate entities, unless it has to do with stealing personal info such as credit cards, S/N's and the like (which falls under identity theft, and should be getting its own life sentence IMHO soon). These big corporations can easily absorb most attacks (i.e. write off fictitious losses to capital losses, and have the hit go to the stock holders).
But on the other hand, the recent rash (or at least the sudden disclosure) of many corporate scandals basically leaves the stock holders and employees feeling the loss. The actual perpetrators never feel the same loss as someone who no longer has a retirement fund to speak of. So the worst punishment these thieves can receive is some vacation at a minimum security country club. But they have ruined MANY peoples whole lives, yet they have never faced the threat of true consequences.
Now to keep from being completely off topic: So congress has a bill pushed through that will enable hackers to receive a life sentence for their malicious acts. But all that we've heard about cracking down on corporate crime is some fluff regarding the SEC and accounting procedures, and much of the same from George W's podium. (But wait, what was that Harken Energy thingy?)
Seems quite ironic to me considering that the "great economic expansion" of the 90's was just a load of crap ontop of inflated profits. So let's go after those real criminals, Mr. Ashcroft! You just point your finger and we'll tap their phones and ISP to see what kind of mischief they're really getting into.
After all, they never do anything good, do they Yahoo?
Xavodim.com
well of course it's an absurd law. Anything you can do that is illegal online that would merit any such sentence is already illegal, but you already knew that. It's rather predictable in light of the demands for hate crime legislation and the like. It's always illegal to kill someone, even if you kill that person because of some ethnic bias. Imagine that. This law is foolish and ought simply to read "crimes committed electronically should be held to the same standard as crimes committed in the flesh", but whatever. People are stupid.
It really comes down to this: if you can't trust the government to act responsibly, and have no way to enforce responsibility, then perhaps the form of government needs to be changed. For example, one problem with democracy is "tyranny of the majority": if the majority decides some action is a crime, it affects the minority that doesn't believe it's a crime. See drug prohibition for an example.
If you truly believe that democracy is the best form of government, then you have little right to complain when guns are outlawed by the majority. Then again, it would require a constitutional ammendement in the U.S. which requires far more than a simple majority vote to pass. Then again, gun ownership is viewed as the final form of enforcing responsible government when all other methods fail.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
It's one thing that mainstream media continually refers to crackers as "hackers", but I didn't think a Slashdot headline would do so to. The bill is about CRACKING, not hackers.
Six sick
Well, when they say "hacking" they could have misstranslated the swedish work "hacka" that means both hacking, and chop with a axe.
and if they translated it wrong. their "hacker" could be a man with a axe. And that could realy be dangerous.
Most attackls actually happen outside US. How are they going to prosecute *real* hackers is a mystery to me...
Specify that an existing ban on the gadvertisementh of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads.
So - does this mean no more of those annoying X10 ads? "Security"? Suuuure... Like I need to protect my home from the comely lass in the X10 ads...
DoC
That means
- When the light is green or yellow for north/south traffic, it must be red for east/west, and vice versa.
- When there is a green or yellow left-turn arrow for traffic going one way, there must be a red light for non-turning traffic going the opposite way and all traffic at right angles.
The system must be designed so that failure to resolve conflicting green/yellow privileges fails to an all-red or all-off (to be interpreted as a 4-way stop sign) condition rather than all-green. It should be flat impossible to send any command to a traffic light to give a green light to cause collisions.[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Not only is it uppauling, it is also appalling. I'm not sure you should have been flagged "offtopic," since the question of responsibility is there in the "hacking" issue. We have in our torts system the concept of contributory negligence. The person who robs your house is always criminally guilty, but his liability in a civil action might be lessened if you left your door wide open and left the country for six months.
The hacker is (and should be) criminally liable for any criminal acts, but what about the contributory negligence of the software and hardware makers? Of course, this is what all the liability disclaimers are for. (By using this software, you agree to the following...).
As a developer of software myself, I much prefer the caveat emptor system we currently use. I couldn't afford to write software if I might be liable for its flaws or misuse. Software is the only product I can think of with a specific disclaimer of merchantability or fitness. And yet we can get patents on it? Weird world...
Can someone tell me just how a mouse can be as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb?? The only things i can think if are situations where someone had interfaced the controls to some thing important with a computer - i.e a life support machine, an air traffic control system, a gun mounted on a robotic platform aimed at a busy street, a bomb, a nuclear bomb, or some sort of switch that transmitted hear'says music on every tv and radio channel in the world. For this to be utilised by a hacker in a way that would make them responsible would require that the interface was then connected to a publicly accessable network system (eg, the internet). Since its a mouse were talking about, it would have to be done through some sort of graphical interface. Lets bring everything together here:
If i clicked a submit button on a form in a browser at a certain website that would activate an interface and do one of the things previously mentioned, i would be liable? WOULDNT THE STUPID IDIOT WHO SET THIS SYSTEM UP BE LIABLE?? lol
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
this must be a first, a life sentence charge without even physically harming anyone, something doesn't add up.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
And use your computer to direct airliners into eachother, open dam gates, stop power and water in the middle of an emergency situation, or dump millions of gallons of raw sewage into the drinking water supply, you deserve to get life.
What are they waiting for? I can see it now. Osama simultaneously blows up 10 major cities with suitcase hydrogen bombs. We catch him and there's plenty of evidence, but we have to let him walk because congress never passed a law against "blowing up 10 cities with suitcase hydrogen bombs". They'd better pass a law before the first person in history actually commits such a crime. And don't forget the new law about flying large planes into tall buildings.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
We can now put Mr. Gates and crew away for life.
Left-click on "Start" (bottom left of screen". Move your lethal mouse (while keeping it on a surface such as a mousepad) up to "Hack." Enter number of people that you wish to kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon. Click "Done". Wipe your mouse for fingerprints.
They will give back your rights. Vote for them in every election, before it is too late.
So does it apply to VOIP too? I mean, that's just a computer link isn't it? And all telcos use it.
What you say? Instant phone tapping of *anyone* without a warrent?
this stupid shite makes me wanna hack computers -- not leave them alone -- like posting the naked photos of Bush's daughters on AM I Hot or Not.com (NOT)
the current administration has done nothing but destroy years of work by very smart people -- amazing what a complete dumbass can do in a year when you make him president!!!
Okay, I can go along with a life sentence if the hacker caused harm against a country or its people, but what about things like ripping mp3's or selling bootleg MPEG's on the 'net? Serious stuff to the media companies, but hardly worth a life sentence.
Which has a good definition at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConse quences.html
Never mind the fact that we already have laws covering theft, murder, hacking, etc... As laws against cracking, and even hacking, get more and more draconian, what will be the eventual effect?
I think that a probable result is fewer and fewer hackers in the US. Which means, over time, less and less US expertise in safe systems, and relatively more foriegn expertise in cracking systems. Combine this with the various M$ attempts to make their insecure products mandatory, and their attempts to outlaw the release of information on their bugs, and what do you have?
Anti-cracking laws are fine, with reasonable penalties; unreasonable penalties will result in a huge loss of security for the USA in the long run. Only the bad guys will have the skills, and the really bad ones want to cause damage, not just get some props by embarassing corporations into fixing their security holes.
Well, the general idea is, if you make an example of a few hackers and script kiddies by putting them away for a long time, the long term effect will probably be the unintended consequence of much higher susceptability of the USA digital infrastructure to attack by the "Really Bad Guys".
..."A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb."
Yeah, only if you were to click on the fire or detonate buttons. But nobody does that sort of thing anymore.
"I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my own pelvis"
How can there be such a bill when there is no equivalent bill for those people who RUIN the livelihoods of millions of people in the name of personal greed?
...except for the fuckin politicians.
Honestly, where do they dig these people up to be politicians? There are maybe one or two senators who might actually have a clue, and that goes double for house reps.
I'd run, but I wouldn't be good at it. That and I'm 21....
The terrorists won, you know. Already. Everyone here changed after 9/11. Am I the only one that no longer cares that some ignorant towelhead learned to fly a plane? Tragedy, yes, no question. But if we let it corrupt and ruin us from the inside, the terrorists won. As if blowing up two buildings alone was what "stopped America". No, not only did the economic havoc mess us up but now everyone is still "emotionally scarred" from the experience, and they're all trying to compensate by being blind, flag waving sheep. They will be further abused by those who see this opportunity, and that number of "those" isn't small....
Oh, but dont' you dare speak out about it, or you're a terrorist. And Baby Jesus, who sits on our legislative branch now, will together with Uncle Sam stick a pitchfork in your heathen ass and ship you to the South Pole.
Guess what kids? If you crack Palladium, or use a felt marker to "fix" a copy protected CD... YOU'RE A HACKER. A sad day when I can stab someone with a Sharpie and get less time than if I write with it.
Land of the free, home of the sellout. I'm going to Canada.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It's fun to bitch about the
D-M-C-A!
It's fun to bitch about the
D-M-C-A-Ayyyyyyy
You can moan you can gripe
You can bitch all you like
Just don't call Mrs. Clinton a di-ike!
Young man!
There no where you can run, I said
Young man!
You can not own a gun, you just
Sit there! And buy my damn CD
Just like Jack Va-len-ti told me
Young man!
You are all on your own, I said
Young man!
You can bitch and can groan, but no
Nothing!
Is gonna get this law changed
Because Jack Valenti owns you!
It's fun to bitch about the
D-M-C-A!
It's fun to bitch about the
D-M-C-A-Ayyyyyyy
You can moan you can gripe
You can bitch all you like
Just don't call Mrs. Clinton a di-ike!
Thank you....thank you...
Make that Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals.
I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
It is interesting that Congress has approved a penalty usually reserved for murder for a crime that essentially amounts to expensive vandalism. If you deface a wall, you get a few hours of community service. If you deface a website, you get life. I would say that it is difficult to consider a society that can put people in prison for life for a crime that is more or less a misdemeanor a free society.
What about those Enron and Worldcom executives? When do they get life in prison or an even stiffer sentence? The crime they committed was premeditated stealing. That at least would be considered a felony in most cultures.
Moral:
If you are greedy and like to steal, Uncle Sam wants you to run a major corporation and write a book. If you are a teenager and have nothing better to do than deface a little property, better do it with spray paint, because if you use your computer, you can grow old in prison.
Nice message we are sending to young people these days. I suppose Gecko was right: "Greed... is good!"
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
What about Sirhan Sirhan?
Ignorance is not linguistic drift.
Wouldn't it be cool if random people throughout the country could mod laws? People who have voted, paid their taxes, etc. are given points so they can mod laws as offtopic, redundant, flamebait(all of which apply to the law currently under examination.) Laws with ratings below a certain number, (I'd say probably 2) would not be enforced. And the representitives would have karma based on ratings of laws they voted for, with bonuses for creation of good bills and filibusters against bad laws.
Ignorance is not linguistic drift.
LIFE...Liberty...and the Pursuit of..... What is this? What kind of communist dictatorship do we live under? Yes I agree, there should be some punishment for illegal online pursuits. Come on though, life sentances. This rep from Texas gives Texans a bad name, not to mention a bad image. The reason hacking or phreaking is done is to gain information, to share knowledge. All information wants to be free, it should be free. Knowledge is power right. Who are these people that would keep us ignorant of what goes on. Are they going to penalize hackers in the hopes that it might someday deter a would be hacker from learning of a company or branch of government involed in an illegal pursuit? I think it is time that the younger generation. Us gen X'ers, to get involved, to keep these people from turning our country into the very thing our fathers and grand fathers fought against. A government not for the people or by the people, but one that regulates it's people.
The linked page is a 1.6 million character HTML document. Of that, .27 million characters are part of the text. The other 1.3 million are markup, virtually all bloated href, tr, td and font tags. That's some bad web design. The page would take about seven minutes to load on a modem.
What's more, they know how to make a reasonable page, as evidenced by the printer friendly version which weighs in at a much more sane ~.3M characters.
For anyone who wants reasonably sized HTML on Slashdot, make sure to check out "Light" mode on your preferences.
I haven't been able to go through all 927 comments, but this applies only to hackers that maliciously hack into systems that run critical equipment concerning health and life-support. As I understand it, this isn't just about someone getting onto someone else's computer and messing with a few files.
they called it "Zipping" and it was punished by death or a life sentence. If the person had no past criminal history (IE a "blank") a computer tried to match him/her up with a criminal profile if the probability was high enough. So they would get convicted for crimes they didn't commit so that the police would have easier paperwork.
I suppose that is next, if the person doesn't have a criminal history, match him/her up with a criminal profile if the probability is close enough.
Since when did this cease being a free country anyway?