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.

14 of 801 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by MiTEG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone? by CountBrass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would sensibly be covered by existing murder and man-slaughter laws. The internet and computers are not some how "special" and "different" - they should and must be subject to the same laws as every other human endeavour. No need for endless special legislation - well except for the senator from disney and his cronies to promote their pay-master's interests.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  3. Don't understand... by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Don't understand... by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, of course we have laws on the books already that provide for a life sentence in the case of attempted murder... and presumably at a federal level where this is in effect (state level is totally different).

      And for quite some time I wondered the same thing a lot of people did on this thread -- why did we need a specific law? Why doesn't current case law apply?

      Well, the answer probably is that, in theory, we don't need a law. Current case law does apply. The problem is that too many lawyers push the law to the limits in defense and start weasling around the letter of the law rather than the spirit. How would you like for a legitimate hacker to get off scott free because a lawyer successfully argued that his client didn't attempt to kill an entire town by sabotaging the water control systems, it was the guy who was working there that day and doing his normal job. Irrelevant that the normal control procedures had been subverted.

      Silly? Sure. But that's the way the legal system runs at times. This law prevents that kind of crap.

      Now, the wiretapping without a warrant is a whole different issue. But people are far too willing to give up their freedom for a false sense of security nowadays. It's very, very sad.

  4. Except by wiredog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Except by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The obvious analogy: after OKC (which resulted in a Federal trial, as you may recall) the government didn't rush to make new laws about rental trucks.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds. by Bartmoss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then why is a new law needed?

  6. Re:Typical by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get what repealed?

    IT'S A BILL

    This still needs to go to the Senate and the Pres. Lobby them.

  7. Since I doubt you actually read the legislation... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Okay, this is pretty much it. by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful
    John Walker Lindh is A MEMBER OF THE TALIBAN, and is charged as a traitor to the United States, is only receiving 20 years in jail.
    Why is being a member of a political party in a foreign country a crime? The US were never at war with the Taleban until a group that operated out of their country committed the 911 atrocities. Even then, the Taleban offered to extradite OBL if the US could offer any evidence that he was involved. GWB declined, so they said get stuffed, quite reasonably IMO. I really don't understand why affiliation with the government that the US helped to establish is suddenly treason.
  9. Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone? by Saltine+Cracker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a hack causes death the hacker can never be the only one to blame IMHO.

    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 think the premiss of this law is probably correct. If you commit a robbery and someone gets killed during the commision of that crime the law regarding that crime says you may be held accountable for that death. I don't think this law is much different.

    If I hack something like a city's traffic control system and start playing around, only to leave the busiest intersections lights green in both directions, then unbeknownst to me some Soccer mom and her 5 kids get killed by a 18 wheeler driving through said intersection, I'm the one liable for their deaths. The people responsible for maintaining the traffic system may also be liable under either criminal or civil matter for neglegence or something like that, but they can't be held responsible for my actions. Just like, going back to the robbery, if that store owner pulls his gun and shoots and me but hits a customer, I'm still on the hook for the customer's death.

    I am not a lawyer, nor a gynocologist, but I play both in my back shed.

  10. Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds. by Yohahn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Didn't the leaders of Enron and Worldcom ruin lifes?
    If there is a life sentence for computer hacking why isn't there one for mallicious cooking of the books?

    (answer: The politicians would be so vulnerable that they couldn't pass it)

  11. Redundant and Unconstitutional by dh003i · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. The Hacker Manifesto by chuckw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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*