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.
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.
Close, but not accurate.
Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot soda cans off a fence != crime
Actually, if you're in a densely populated area then it can be considered a crime. (Reckless endangerment.)
Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot someone in the face == crime
If the person in question has invaded your home and you are in reasonable fear for your life then it's self defense.
So, like all things (including the own a computer and go to jail for life statement) need to be clarified. The real issue is why this needs "new" laws. There are currently laws on the books for terrorist acts. There are laws for assault and murder as well. Just because the "weapon" is different shouldn't change anything.
The part of the bill that should be of the most concern is the provisions that cover something like "hot pursuit" where ISP's are allowed to monitor and turn over information based on a judgement call.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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.
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.
I've heard news somewhere about warnings for terrorist attacks through the internet, things like possible attacks to nuclear power plants.
My mother used to work for GPU Nuclear, the company that owned Three Mile Island and Oyster Creek among other nuclear reactors. Their security, even way before the whole terrorist threat being brought to the foreground, was practically unbreakable. Nuclear reactors are considered super-high risk by the government - try getting a job there, let alone approaching one. They do extensive background checks through the FBI, and the perimeter is protected by 12-foot high barbed-wire fences and armed guards with sub machine guns and orders to shoot on sight.
The internet services and the computer systems that control the reactors aren't physically connected. That's the easiest way to keep it secure, right? Offer no access.
Pop quiz: do you know one of the major reasons Three Miles Island came so close to a meltdown? their security was too tight. They didn't want to risk anyone getting any major telephony access to the site, so there was only one phone line leading to the outside world. Naturally, it was rather tied up with people calling their families so reenforcements were substantially delayed.
Disclaimer: IANANE (I Am Not A Nuclear Engineer) but I grew up with someone in the business - my mom was THERE when TMI almost melted.
Triv
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.
Actually, there is a reason for having several laws for the same crime. A good friend of mine is a former cop and he explained it to me.
DUI- you get ticketed for: DWI, DUI, and anything else that you can be ticketed for. (reasons that you were pulled over in the first place)
This is done because the majority of these charges are thrown out in court for one reason or another (read:technicalities) and if you have enough against you, you most likly will not get completly off on technicalities and it has not been a waste of time for the officer, judge, court system etc.
It is illegal to kill someone.
Not federally.
It is also illegal to kill someone because of their race or sexuality.
The reason we can have a federal law against killing someone because of their race or sexuality, but can't have a federal law against killing someone without affecting interstate commerce is because of the 14th amendment.