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.

Comments

Typical

[dharcombe]

A typical knee-jerk reaction.

Any lawyers out there know if the ACLU or someone similar can get it repealed?

Re:Typical

[sqlrob]

Get what repealed?

IT'S A BILL

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

Re:Typical

[Martigan80]

Or you can just move to another country, but then again it will take a couple of years for it to catch up.

Re:Typical

[linzeal]

Move to england and see what america will look like in 10 years.

Re:Typical

[ethereal]

Sounds like someone needs to watch some more Schoolhouse Rock :)

Oh, I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill...

Re:Typical

[wo1verin3]

The DMCA was once just a bill....

Re:Typical

[sketchkid]

might want to notice the first line saying the Bush Administration had asked congress to pass it. and you might want to notice which party is in the house. thats why it passed.

also, with more reports coming out saying that these terrorists are using email and satelite phones (and any other technology that John Q. doesnt normally use) its going to be harder for third party lobby groups and political action committees to come to our aid.

Re:Typical

[SirChive]

No, the same wonderful ACLU that helps ensure that we can go to the library and actually be able to browse Slashdot, the Register, various political party sites, sites giving information on birth control and aides and various other legitimate sites that would otherwise be blocked by dysfunctional filtering programs.

Re:Typical

[TheMatt]

Actually, not quite. How a bill becomes law in the House and Senate is not that simple. Read these and have fun.

Re:Typical

[onepoint]

Here are the words to the tune "I'm Just a BiLL

I'm just a bill,
yes, I'm only a bill,
and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill,
Well, it's a long, long journey
to the Capitol City,
It's a long, long wait
while I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday,
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.
I'm just a bill,
yes I'm only a bill,
and I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
and I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
discuss and debate
whether they should
let me be a law,
how I hope and pray that they will,
but today I am still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
yes I'm only a bill,
and if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
with a lot of other bills
For the president to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
but today I am still just a bill.

(Spoken): Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!

Re:Typical

[earthpig]

hey fellow geeks
get on the phone call your senators
state your opposition to this bill. if all of us who gripe in /. gripped to our 'elected' officials i might make a difference.

we really cannot afford not to get involved in these things.

Re:Typical

[macdaddy357]

I tried to read the proposal. It is pure legalese, and assumes familiarity with the entire body of previous law. I can guarantee that our Congressmen don't understand it either, and the few who want to understand it will need a team of lawyers to explain it to them. If this is an example of a typical bill before Congress, then who can imagine what they hell they'll be tricked into signing. It makes me sick.

Re:Typical

[morleron]

I absolutely agree. This sort of thing has got to be stopped now. The implications of this act are frightening. I seem to recall that either the so-called PATRIOT act or the DMCA (I don't remember which) uses a definition of "hacking" that is very broad and includes, under some circumstances, reverse-engineering, the use of encyrption technology, etc..

Combine this with the PATRIOT act, the DMCA, and the SSSCA and our rights in cyberspace and elsewhere are fast disappearing. Those who wish to gut the constitution of the U.S. are using the "threat" of terrorism as the instrument to do it with. Notice how we've been bombarded by more warnings of "imminent terrorist activity" these last few days? How convenient to trot that out as a smoke screen and an excuse for pushing this piece of legislation through as quickly as possible.

So long as the administration isn't forced to define under what circumstances the war against terrorism will end they will continue to get away with this sort of thing. It's so easy to manipulate public fear by simply announcing the occasional "yellow alert" or the seizure of an alleged terrorist. Unless we all act together and soon I'm very afraid for the future of open discourse in this country. I'm not usually one to draw historic parallels, but this is very like what Hitler did when he first took power; only in his case it was the Communists who were the threat used to start the restrictions placed on rights of association, speech, etc. that took place in the first few years of the Nazi regime.

Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't suppose that many of those who voted for this bill considered the chilling effect that it will have on use of the Internet. So long as the DOJ and DOD can define the terms under which the struggle against the terrorist threat, which is very real as 9/11 showed us, is conducted we must guard against incursions being made on our civil liberties. Time to send more money to the EFF, etc. This sort of thing makes the threat that MS poses to Open Source look trivial by comparison.

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:Typical

[nelsonal]

Legalese is still english, and easier to understand than, for example, C/C++. However for the legal impaired, here is your translation to english.


TITLE I--COMPUTER CRIME

SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.

DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code. REQUIREMENTS- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission shall-- (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses described in subsection , the growing incidence of such offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses; consider the following factors and the extent to which the guidelines may or may not account for them--the potential and actual loss resulting from the offense; the level of sophistication and planning involved in the offense; whether the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial benefit; whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to cause harm in committing the offense; the extent to which the offense violated the privacy rights of individuals harmed; whether the offense involved a computer used by the government in furtherance of national defense, national security, or the administration of justice; whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person; assure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and with other sentencing guidelines; account for any additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges; make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing guidelines; and assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.

Director of prisons: Its an election year and I need to look tough on terrorism to my constituants, so go look hard at the current sentancing guidelines so I can say I did something. If it looks like a total scumbag could, screw with the public infacstructure, hold it for ransom, or plan a fairly sophisticated attack on us without getting much more than a slap on the wrist, I want him hung by his nuts, so change it!
SEC. 101A. STUDY AND REPORT ON COMPUTER CRIMES. Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sentencing Commission shall submit a brief report to Congress that explains any actions taken by the Sentencing Commission in response to this Act and includes any recommendations the Commission may have regarding statutory penalties for offenses under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.
You have to tell us what you changed so we can show the voters how tough we were.

SEC. 102. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.
These are all the laws that need changing to allow you to do what we asked.

IN GENERAL- Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking `or' at the end of paragraph(5); by striking subparagraph (C) of paragraph; in paragraph (6), by inserting `or' at the end of subparagraph (A); and by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency.'.

REPORTING OF DISCLOSURES- A government entity that receives a disclosure under this section shall file, no later than 90 days after such disclosure, a report to the Attorney General stating the subparagraph under which the disclosure was made, the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the disclosure was made, the number of customers or subscribers to whom the information disclosed pertained, and the number of communications, if any, that were disclosed. The Attorney General shall publish all such reports into a single report to be submitted to Congress one year after enactment of the bill.

SEC. 103. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION.

Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or 2511(2)(i)' after `2511(3)'.

SEC. 104. INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.

Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by inserting `or disseminates by electronic means' after `or other publication'; and by inserting `knowing the content of the advertisement and' before `knowing or having reason to know'.
No more X-11 Even senator's hate those.

SEC. 105. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.

Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (3); in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4), by inserting `except as provided in paragraph (5),' before `a fine under this title'; by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C) and inserting `; and'; and 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 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.'.
Here is the life sentance part. This doesn't seem unfair. If you try to hack my nuclear power plant, I hope they fry you too.
SEC. 106. PROVIDER ASSISTANCE.

Section 2703- Section 2703(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `, statutory authorization' after `subpoena'.

Section 2511- Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `, statutory authorization,' after `court order' the last place it appears.

SEC. 107. EMERGENCIES.

Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (A); by striking the comma at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting a semicolon; and by adding at the end the following: an immediate threat to a national security interest; or'an ongoing attack on a protected computer (as defined in section 1030) that constitutes a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than one year;'.

SEC. 108. PROTECTING PRIVACY.

Section 2511- Section 2511(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking paragraph (b); and by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
Makes you wonder what was in paragraph b doesn't it. Probably, Senator Hollings is a do-do head or soemthing.

Section 2701- Section 2701(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--in paragraph (1), by inserting `, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State' after `commercial gain';in paragraph (1)(A), by striking `one year' and inserting `5 years'; in paragraph (1)(B), by striking `two years' and inserting `10 years'; and so that paragraph (2) reads as follows: in any other case--a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph; and a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under this subparagraph that occurs after a conviction of another offense under this section.'.
If you're a crazy who doesn't care about commercial gain, were still gonna lock you up!
PRESENCE OF OFFICER AT SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF WARRANTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND CUSTOMER RECORDS- Section 3105 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `The presence of an officer is not required for service or execution of a search warrant directed to a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service for records or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.'.

Holy legalese batman, this one's kinda scary, it gives them the privledge to execute a warrent at your ISP without an officer's precense. I cant tell if it means the G-man can hack your account, or if they don't have to serve you, to check your ISP records, but I'm guessing the latter.
TITLE II--OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE; DIRECTOR.

ESTABLISHMENT-

IN GENERAL- There is hereby established within the Department of Justice an Office of Science and Technology (hereinafter in this title referred to as the `Office').
Another easy thing to point to to show how technical and hard on terroism the rep is. Its pretty sad that the FBI currently can't search their database with even the power of Windows find. We're pretty luck that by and large criminals are idiots.
AUTHORITY- The Office shall be under the general authority of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, and shall be independent of the National Institute of Justice.
You have to show the new director where his budget comes from so he knows whieh butt to kiss.
DIRECTOR- The Office shall be headed by a Director, who shall be an individual appointed based on approval by the Office of Personnel Management of the executive qualifications of the individual.
This just establishes a director and who gets to name him.
SEC. 202. MISSION OF OFFICE; DUTIES.

MISSION- The mission of the Office shall be--
To get me reelected, just checking to see if your still reading.
to serve as the national focal point for work on law enforcement technology; and to carry out programs that, through the provision of equipment, training, and technical assistance, improve the safety and effectiveness of law enforcement technology and improve access to such technology by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Everything needs a misson statment these days. Director, get those FBI searches to support multiple terms and boolean logic.
DUTIES- In carrying out its mission, the Office shall have the following duties: To provide recommendations and advice to the Attorney General. To establish and maintain advisory groups (which shall be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to assess the law enforcement technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
You have to work with both the AG, and the state law enforcment departments.
To establish and maintain performance standards in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) for, and test and evaluate law enforcement technologies that may be used by, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
We love charts that show technology increasing, and crime decreasing.
To establish and maintain a program to certify, validate, and mark or otherwise recognize law enforcement technology products that conform to standards established and maintained by the Office in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113). The program may, at the discretion of the Office, allow for supplier's declaration of conformity with such standards.
There is a reccession to end, make sure that our campaing donor's products get a nice big seal to show to the folks who run the state law enforcment agencies.
To work with other entities within the Department of Justice, other Federal agencies, and the executive office of the President to establish a coordinated Federal approach on issues related to law enforcement technology. To carry out research, development, testing, and evaluation in fields that would improve the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of law enforcement technologies used by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to--
Good, more spending, I hope some of it makes it to my district this time.
weapons capable of preventing use by unauthorized persons, including personalized guns; protective apparel; bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant glass; monitoring systems and alarm systems capable of providing precise location information; wire and wireless interoperable communication technologies;
3G just needs a kick in the pants to take off.
tools and techniques that facilitate investigative and forensic work, including computer forensics; equipment for particular use in counterterrorism, including devices and technologies to disable terrorist devices; guides to assist State and local law enforcement agencies; DNA identification technologies; and tools and techniques that facilitate investigations of computer crime.
Hey, the donations from these companes finally paid off.
(7) To administer a program of research, development, testing, and demonstration to improve the interoperability of voice and data public safety communications.
Before we go on a buying spree, please test this stuff, we don't want to look bad when this gets someone killed.
(8) To serve on the Technical Support Working Group of the Department of Defense, and on other relevant interagency panels, as requested. To develop, and disseminate to State and local law enforcement agencies, technical assistance and training materials for law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors.
No slouching on the job, teach those state justice people how to nail cyber criminals, if you have some free time.
To operate the regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and, to the extent necessary, establish additional centers through a competitive process.
The states are getting pretty tired of unfunded mandates so you will have your own department.
To administer a program of acquisition, research, development, and dissemination of advanced investigative analysis and forensic tools to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in combating cybercrime. To support research fellowships in support of its mission.
We can't fall behind Japan in a technology race, so support some scientists working on NSF grants that apply to what we want you to do.
To serve as a clearinghouse for information on law enforcement technologies. To represent the United States and State and local law enforcement agencies, as requested, in international activities concerning law enforcement technology.
Here's your R&R, just don't go to the Tahitian conference on cyber security during an election year, please.
To enter into contracts and cooperative agreements and provide grants, which may require in-kind or cash matches from the recipient, as necessary to carry out its mission.
Contiued recession-busting and pump priming. Line up to the trough boys, the pork's a comming
To carry out other duties assigned by the Attorney General to accomplish the mission of the Office.
If we get caught with our pants down agian, fix that too!

COMPETITION REQUIRED- Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, all research and development carried out by or through the Office shall be carried out on a competitive basis.
Aren't you happy your security is ensured by the lowest bidder? It looks really bad when another doner gets a contract and we don't have a good reason, like he was the lowest bidder. [at an acution that was only publicized at his place of business]

INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES- Federal agencies shall, upon request from the Office and in accordance with Federal law, provide the Office with any data, reports, or other information requested, unless compliance with such request is otherwise prohibited by law.
FBI and CIA you have to play nice with these guys, their getting us reelected, and were mad that you didn't predict the future last time.

PUBLICATIONS- Decisions concerning publications issued by the Office shall rest solely with the Director of the Office. TRANSFER OF FUNDS- The Office may transfer funds to other Federal agencies or provide funding to non-Federal entities through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to carry out its duties under this section.
Now you can pay for all the stuff you're buying.

ANNUAL REPORT- The Director of the Office shall include with the budget justification materials submitted toCongress in support of the Department of Justice budget for each fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) a report on the activities of the Office. Each such report shall include the following:
Again we have to have charts to take to the voters, and we look really dumb on CSAN just standing there. If you hook me up with a laser pointer, I'll make sure that your budget gets increased next year.

(1) For the period of 5 fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted--the Director's assessment of the needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies for assistance with respect to law enforcement technology and other matters consistent with the mission of the Office; and
this better involve lots of spending in my district.
a strategic plan for meeting such needs of such law enforcement agencies.
Pols love strategy meetings almost as much as their cousins the PHBs.
For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such budget is submitted, a description of the activities carried out by the Office and an evaluation of the extent to which those activities successfully meet the needs assessed under paragraph (1)(A) in previous reports.
You better get some good stuff done, remeber we have to look good to the voters.


SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY.
This is where all the terms we used are defined, so you don't make any mistakes, an opponent can beat us over the head with next election.
For the purposes of this title, the term `law enforcement technology' includes investigative and forensic technologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that support the judicial process.

SEC. 204. ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE; TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

TRANSFERS FROM OFFICE WITHIN NIJ- The Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice is hereby abolished, and all functions and activities performed immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act by the Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice are hereby transferred to the Office.
You have failed me for the last time, director.

AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS- The Attorney General may transfer to the Office any other program or activity of the Department of Justice that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, determines to be consistent with the mission of the Office.
Ashcroft is really starting to annoy us.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS-
This is the really important part.
IN GENERAL- Any balance of appropriations that the Attorney General determines is available and needed to finance or discharge a function, power, or duty of the Office or a program or activity that is transferred to the Office shall be transferred to the Office and used for any purpose for which those appropriations were originally available. Balances of appropriations so transferred shall--be credited to any applicable appropriation account of the Office; or be credited to a new account that may be established on the books of the Department of the Treasury;and shall be merged with the funds already credited to that account and accounted for as one fund.
Funding comes from the Office of the AG, and you can store funds with the Treasury.

LIMITATIONS- Balances of appropriations credited to an account under paragraph (1)(A) are subject only to such limitations as are specifically applicable to that account. Balances of appropriations credited to an account under paragraph (1)(B) are subject only to such limitations as are applicable to the appropriations from which they are transferred.
You can use the funds for any purpose that is likely to get us reellected.

TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND ASSETS- With respect to any function, power, or duty, or any program or activity, that is transferred to the Office, those employees and assets of the element of the Department of Justice from which the transfer is made that the Attorney General determines are needed to perform that function, power, or duty, or for that program or activity, as the case may be, shall be transferred to the Office.
this just allows people to be transfered to the new office from other departments. Not allowing hires or transfers is an easy way to sound like you are for something, but can remain agianst it.

REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of this title. The report shall--identify each transfer carried out pursuant to subsection (b)Sorry the lameness filter doesn't like the subsection titles. b is the subsection that describes accounts left with the treasury.; provide an accounting of the amounts and sources of funding available to the Office to carry out its mission under existing authorizations and appropriations, and set forth the future funding needs of the Office; include such other information and recommendations as the Attorney General considers appropriate.
Good more reports, this is better than Christmas, On national news, I get to look good either praising you for preventing crime, or rake you over the coals, for letting something bad happen. I hope they get my good side, while I get a great sound byte.

SEC. 205. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.

IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office shall operate and support National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers (hereinafter in this section referred to as `Centers') and, to the extent necessary, establish new centers through a merit-based, competitive process.

PURPOSE OF CENTERS- The purpose of the Centers shall be to--support research and development of law enforcement technology; support the transfer and implementation of technology; assist in the development and dissemination of guidelines and technological standards; and provide technology assistance, information, and support for law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice purposes.
You better put a center in my disctrict, just think of all the high tech jobs I'll have brought in, its like an elected offical's wet dream.

ANNUAL MEETING- Each year, the Director shall convene a meeting of the Centers in order to foster collaboration and communication between Center participants.
REPORT- Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the Congress a report assessing the effectiveness of the existing system of Centers and identify the number of Centers necessary to meet the technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the United States.
If we hear about a complete lack of productivity at those centers, from the media, were gonna can you!

SEC. 206. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Section 102 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712) is amended in subsection (a)(5) by inserting `coordinate and' before `provide'. Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2002.

Attest:
Clerk.
Lets you know that it passed the house, and the date. Also that the clerk attests to this fact. Happily, for the bill's opponents, the senate is much more thoughtful about sweeping legislation, unless there's pork involved for their district. The only major change to actual policy is the provision regarding the warrant sercicing at your ISP or colo. The rest is just elected officials shuffling jobs trying to look good in an election year.
END
That's it, wow that took a long time! Now get back to work! Especially if you work for the government.

Re:Typical

[FuegoFuerte]

might want to notice the first line saying the Bush Administration had asked congress to pass it. and you might want to notice which party is in the house. thats why it passed.

It only had 3 votes against it. It had 385 for it. This has nothing to do with party lines or majorities or who's in the House. It has everything to do with the self-serving paranoia being served out by the government and swallowed blindly by the we the sheeple. Eventually, everyone will probably realize the folley of what they've allowed to happen, but by then it will be very difficult indeed to fix. Eventually, it may come to another revolution, which one of our founding fathers was wise enough to forsee over 200 years ago (sorry but I don't remember who). Honestly, my main hope is that I don't have to choose a side.

Re: Typical

[avante]

That's all true. The law makes it explicit that someone using a computer WITH THE INTENT to cause death can be issued a life sentence. The part that bewilders me is why there is a need to make it explicit in this bill. Should it not be covered under existing legislation? I'm not so concerned that the part about life sentences in the bill is an assault on civil liberties... which I am still concerned about. I don't understand why the penalty for murder is made explicit. Maybe a lawyer could explain that to us in better terms.

That said, there may be plenty of other reasons not to support such a bill.

Re:Typical

[Thorstein]

What is wrong with porn? I like....especially free porn. Thorstein

Re:Typical

[Thorstein]

Yeah...in 10 years Emo Bands will finally be popular..or do you think they will have only made their way up to Grunge? Thorstein

Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[OpCode42]

Well, if hacking actually resulted in deaths, a life sentence would be applicable. Has it?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[CountBrass]

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.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[AVee]

Well, if hacking actually resulted in deaths, a life sentence would be applicable.

Yes, i agree, but not just for the hacker. I would at least take a serious look at the people responsible for the system. If some kids kicks agains the wall of a building and it collapses, who's to blame?

Has it?

Not that i know of, but i might happen. I've heard news somewhere about warnings for terrorist attacks through the internet, things like possible attacks to nuclear power plants. Personally i think anyone that build a system to control a nuclear power plant and connects it to the internet should get a life sentence. If a hack causes death the hacker can never be the only one to blame IMHO.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Grax]

It is illegal to kill someone. It is also illegal to kill someone because of their race or sexuality. And now it is illegal to kill someone using a computer. Glad we got this worked out.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Zarf]

Once again America doesn't need MORE laws just to apply the existing ones judiciously.

In all seriousness, could some one explain to me why we need to crack down on "Cyber Terrorists"? I thought it was the regular, box-cutter-weilding, gun-toting, bomb-making kind that were giving us problems lately. Shouldn't the government be trying to stream line its paperwork processes and attempting to fix internal security problems?

Shouldn't we be working harder to fix existing government agencies that don't work as intended instead of making new ones?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[mpe]

That would sensibly be covered by existing murder and man-slaughter laws.

The term to cover this kind of legislation is "supercriminalisation". Such laws are redundant before they are even passed. Typically done to make politicans appear to be "doing something", especially if there is a lobby group needing to be appeased.
You could also look at it as a way of politicans avoiding doing their jobs whilst appearing to do so.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[altgrr]

There was once a time when people plodded along, happy that the law covered any wrongdoing that anyone could do.

That time is now, apparently, gone. You cannot use a computer these days without worrying that there is some stupid specific little bit of law that relates to what you are doing and makes it illegal. Everyone (well, everyone on Slashdot, probably) knows about the DMCA, and its implications. That's the kind of thing we have to steer clear of: needless restrictions on the use of computers.

We don't need any more laws pertaining to computers, because everything that has gone before covers the crimes you can commit using a computer. Fake an e-mail, hack into a server and change some data - it's fraud. Hack in and take some sensitive data - theft and probably all kinds of other things. And if your hacking into systems happens to be with the sole purpose of killing someone - well, of course, it's murder, as stated by CountBrass above.

Just because the way of committing crime is different doesn't mean that there needs to be a law introduced for it - after all, when the first gun was made, they didn't need to make a new law for that - the previous one, covering knives, axes, legal training (oh sorry, that just causes brain-death :-) ) etc, did just fine.

Law usually is set by a precedent. And have we seen a precedent for this?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Saltine Cracker]

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.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[spezz]

Damn Damn Damn.

First I couldn't kill someone. Then I *really* couldn't kill that gay jewish chick. And now I can't do it from the comfort of my command line.

That's not America. That's not even Mexico.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[operagost]

Just because the way of committing crime is different doesn't mean that there needs to be a law introduced for it - after all, when the first gun was made, they didn't need to make a new law for that

Try to tell that to a liberal.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[emn-slashdot]

"If some kids kicks agains the wall of a building and it collapses, who's to blame?"

That depends on if the kids knew the wall would fall or not. :)

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[gosand]

If some kids kicks agains the wall of a building and it collapses, who's to blame?

This is a very bad analogy. That is like saying "Honestly, I just pinged that company's website, and all of a sudden I was arrested." I really hate it when people paint the picture of the cracker (not hacker) as some innocent kid who didn't realize what he was doing. This law isn't for the kid who defaces a website, it is for something really friggin serious. And now you are suggesting that the owners of the system be punished too? What if someone roots your system, and then hacks into some bank, then gets caught? Should you be held responsible, or the bank? Gee, how about the person who knowingly did something illegal? That is a novel idea.

The obvious downside of this law is that it will be used when the situation isn't that serious. It would have to be a hack that endangered lives. If it were used against someone who just caused monetary damage, then it would be a sad day. After all, do you think the Enron and Andersen boys at the top are going to be spending life in prison? Hell, John Walker Lindh is only expeced to get 20 years.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Triv]

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

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[AVee]

I never intended to say the hacker should *not* be held responsible, but most of the time (but not always) a hacker gets his chance because somebody did a lousy job keeping the system secure. If this system is something that could kill people of abused then a lousy sysadmin is as responsible as the person abusing the system IMHO.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[sketchkid]

im from texas and what amazes me is the fact the administration is pushing this bill to make 'computer crimes' as you say, "special" and "different". when james byrd was dragged to death in jasper, tx several years ago when bush was govenor, bush would not pass a hate crimes bill b/c he said all crimes are hate. i dont understand! this man was flat out murdered b/c of pure hatred and he wouldnt make a hate crimes bill. there isnt one computer crime that matches that for me, and yet he's pushing a computer crimes bill. argh, the injustices of this cruel, cruel world.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[JohnFluxx]

Out of curiosity, do they have AA guns?

I saw on TV ppl testing flying planes into brick walls to test, they said, how a nuclear power plant would cope.

The plane just disapeared in a cloud of smoke, leaving the wall still standing tho ;)

JohnFlux

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Dwonis]

Why should the person be required to keep things secure? If someone breaks into your house, you are not to blame that the bars over your windows were not thick enough. Yes, you may have prevented the break-in by using thicker bars, but the blame is still not yours.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[AVee]

Yep, but nobody dies if someone breaks into my house. But when somebody breaks into say a nuclear power plant people might die, thats why it is, and should be, much harder to get into a nuclear power plant than it is to get into my house...

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[gerf]

Actually, you can be convicted of repressing someone's civil liberties when you kill someone. happened in the south during the end of that whole "let's kill black people and white people who love them" time in the 60s.

oh, and "Attempts to cause death are punishable by up to life in prison". you have to be trying to kill someone with your computer. so, if i slash your throat with my NIC, does that count?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Buck2]

No, but we'll gladly mod you offtopic.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Buck2]

They might get digitized and sent inside the computer where they have to find a way to escape that would probably involve hair-rising chases on light cycles and neat clothing.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[overunderunderdone]

A few points

Yes, this bill has a life sentance for "hacking" if your "hack" is used to MURDER or ATTEMPT MURDER.

That would sensibly be covered by existing murder and man-slaughter laws. The internet and computers are not some how "special" and "different"

IANAL or a legislator so I really don't know (and most likely neither do you) whether this bill is necessary or not. I can imagine situations where using a computer as your weapon may also hand you all sorts of defense options at your trial. Using a computer hack to commit a crime you would otherwise might need a few tons of dynamite for (i.e causing a dam to malfunction rather than blowing it up) may very well be a situation that current law doesn't address clearly. The guy sitting in front of a computer typing away certainly doesn't *seem* as violent or as dangerous as the guy with the truck full of TNT. The *reality* is he may have just as great a chance, he may be just as serious and just as dangerous to the rest of us.

You may be right, the current law may be sufficient. The proposed law may be open to abuses. But it seems to me it is certainly worth debate and that reasonable people may disagree about this laws propriety. The alramist posts and ignorant fear-mongering you find on most of these slashdot posts ("the day when you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a computer." modified as "insightful") is certainly just as bad as the alleged alarmism & fear mongering slashdotters are (perhaps unfairly) accusing congress of.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[timeOday]

I'm not a liberal at all, but do you see the irony in your statement given the first sentence of the article, "THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION had asked Congress to approve the Cyber Security Enhancement Act..." (and no I did not add that capitalization myself).

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[jat850]

So, you're saying that if someone hacks into a nuclear power plant, and causes deaths, sysadmins should be held partly accountable?

And by the same token, if someone physically breaks into the nuclear power plant, and causes deaths, security personnel should be held accountable? Both cases are terribly unrealistic...where do you draw the line? A sysadmin can only protect with as much knowledge of the system as they have, and if a yet-unknown Apache vulnerability exists, the sysadmin has no way of preventing exploits against it. Is the buck now passed to Apache for having that code vulnerability?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[UnixJones]

Tell it to a liberal? Obviously you didn't bother to check out the vote totals. It passed 385-3. Two Republicans and one Democrat voted against it, and 46 representatives did not vote. And it's supported by the Republican administration. If there's anybody going crazy criminalizing new things right now, it's Bush and Ashcroft.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[gosand]

If this system is something that could kill people of abused then a lousy sysadmin is as responsible as the person abusing the system IMHO.

Sorry, but this is bullshit. They have a responsibility, but they are not AS responsible. Just because someone CAN commit a crime doesn't mean that they should. I know this isn't what you are saying, but it is implied. That is like saying whoever sold the gun is as responsible as the person who pulled the trigger. Nope, doesn't fly. YES, there is some responsibility, but I object to the fact that they are AS responsible as the person doing the crime. It is a small disctinction, but is very important. It is a dangerous road to travel down. Why is the sysadmin responsible? Why not the programmer who wrote the buggy code? Why not QA who should have caught it? Why not the people who wrote the 3rd party encryption software that got cracked? Why not the maker of the OS that the system runs on, for having security holes? [arbitrary but realistic examples of security breaches] You can't dump the responsibility on the sysadmin, just like you can't dump it on anyone else in the software lifecycle. This assumes it was a software product with the hole, and not some communication standard.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[brad3378]

> If some kids kicks agains the wall of a building and it collapses, who's to blame?

That's easy - It's the parents.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[dohnut]

Does this mean my liability insurance for driving on the information superhighway is going to go up? AGAIN?! It's not fair that just because I have a lot of bandwidth, my case is modded, and I'm a programmer that I have to pay more. I compute responsibly and my record is spotless, yet I'm still high-risk!

Bah!

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[autocracy]

Oh, nice - because I remember that the Maine Yankee used to have daily tours until it shut down due to end-of-life. I imagine it didn't take more than a few dollars to get into the tour. Granted it wasn't into the operating room, but it was on-site.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[brad.hill]

Well, it's sort of a good analogy. Nobody would dream of running a nuclear power plant without security fences, guards, etc. If that infrastructure was so lacking that any reasonably motivated/curious teenager could just wander into the plant unchallenged and start pushing buttons, Homer Simpson style, you can bet that fault would be found with the security provider, even to the point of their being criminally liable for negligence.

We obviously cannot expect security to stop all attacks, physical or over a network, but you can demand a certain level of due dilligence. This is harder to define in the computer world than the physical world, but our legal system can and does deal with more complex issues than this.

This is not to absolve hackers of responsibility for their actions, but merely to say that people running dams, power grids, etc. have a responsibility to anticipate these sorts of things and take appropriate measures to protect the public. Firewalls, intrusion detection, anti-virus software, strong passwords, secure software and a good permissions system are no less necesary than fences, door locks, alarm systems, security cameras and badges.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Triv]

I'd be interested to know exactly WHERE onsite, and what security procedures were in place if you know. Onsite's all well and good, but we're talking about a huge area of land here. "Put these hasmat suits on, ladies and gentleman, the room we're entering is a little 'hot', if you know what I mean." Seriously, how close did these tours come to anything vital? I'll talk to mom and get back to you on this one.

Triv

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[jazman_777]

Once again America doesn't need MORE laws just to apply the existing ones judiciously.

You're right, but the new law isn't about anything rational or necessary. It's a law "for show". Those in congress are vain, preening, losers who couldn't hold a real job. Most of them can't govern themselves properly, but don't hesistate to try to run our lives.

Shouldn't we be working harder to fix existing [nando.net] government agencies that don't work as intended instead of making new ones?

If a gov't agency doesn't work, why should it be "fixed"? Why not eliminate it? Trying to fix it means shoveling more money into the furnace.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[jazman_777]

Tell it to a liberal? Obviously you didn't bother to check out the vote totals. It passed 385-3. Two Republicans and one Democrat voted against it, and 46 representatives did not vote. And it's supported by the Republican administration. If there's anybody going crazy criminalizing new things right now, it's Bush and Ashcroft.

We're all Statists now. Republican, Democrat, even many Libertarians (e.g. Cato) worship and love the Leviathan State, especially when it flexes its war muscles. Yes, it's the Messiah, and will save the world from All Evil (can you say "Infinite Justice"?).

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[sckeener]

Such laws are redundant before they are even passed. Typically done to make politicans appear to be "doing something"

yes, but this law is different than just passing something to appear to be 'doing something'...

Per the article the law "expands police ability to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order."

Ok sodomy laws are still on the books in many states and the concern there is the government is going to be watching you in your bedroom. Of course they can't do that and the law is a moot. The problem is this law will allow them to snoop into the bedroom (pc.)

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[jazman_777]

Their security, even way before the whole terrorist threat being brought to the foreground, was practically unbreakable.

You work for Oracle, right?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[MAXOMENOS]

See, this is one of the things that I hate about the gun-rights crowd: it sabotages itself with this kind of crap.

I'm a liberal Democrat. Hell, I'm probably on the left wing of what most people consider liberal Democrats. I support abortion rights, gay rights, gay marriage, Head Start, massive health care reform, stricter environmental regulations, getting "Under God" out of the Pledge, etc.

I'm also an NRA and JPFO member. I own several firearms, have a CCW, and am trying to decide whether to purchase an SSR or an AR-15 next (I ain't touching the Mini-14, no matter how much I like Ruger's handguns).

It doesn't do any good to pigeonhole people in the gun rights game. The NRA may have 5+ million members, but we can still use all the allies we can get.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[joshyc]

Who cares what the penalty is? It's morally questionable, people shouldn't be doing it anyways. I say give hackers the death sentence. Whatever. If you don't hack then you need not worry.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Arthur Dent]

The term to cover this kind of legislation is "supercriminalisation". Such laws are redundant before they are even passed. Typically done to make politicans appear to be "doing something", especially if there is a lobby group needing to be appeased.

You could also look at it as a way of politicans avoiding doing their jobs whilst appearing to do so.

In addition to that, another reason is that prosecutors can then tack on all possible charges. Thus for a 'murder' done via hacking into the traffic light system (as an example), the prosecutor can add to the list: manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, murder, murder via malicious computer hacking ...

Thus, the perp will be looking at 2 (plus) life sentences if found guilty, thus making the perp more amenable to a plea bargain (even in cases where there is no conclusive evidence of guilt).

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[cduffy]

Using a computer hack to commit a crime you would otherwise might need a few tons of dynamite for (i.e causing a dam to malfunction rather than blowing it up) may very well be a situation that current law doesn't address clearly.

Murder is (legally) murder, whatever the weapon. Certainly, some kinds of weapons have extra charges associated with their use -- but nobody will get away with murder because their weapon was something unrecognized by law, particularly if the man on the bench is halfway sane. Claiming that some new law is needed to criminalize a particular variety of murder is simply ridiculous -- all murder is illegal. (Yes, there are defenses -- but none of these is reference to the weapon used).

IANAL, but I've spent more time in law classes than most.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Kintanon]

Please provide a comprehensive legal definition for what encompasses 'Hacking'. Once you have provided such you will be elligable to be taken seriously, until then you're just flamebait.

Kintanon

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Kintanon]

The line is drawn at good faith efforts. Example: Swimming pool in my back yard. If I have no fence around it, and some 14 year old kid comes over one night to swim in my pool (Trespassing on my property) and drowns I am held responsible for it. If I have a pool with a 6 foot fence and a gate, and the kid climbs over it, and swims in my pool and drowns, I MIGHT be held accountable for it, but there is a good chance of being able to prove good faith effort to keep people out. And if I have a 10 foot tall, electrified, barbwire fence around it with a padlocked gate, and the kid uses rubber gloves and wirecutters to break in, and drowns I'm almost certainly going to get off scotfree..

Kintanon

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Com2Kid]

• Using a computer hack to commit a crime you would otherwise might need a few tons of dynamite for (i.e causing a dam to malfunction rather than blowing it up) may very well be a situation that current law doesn't address clearly. The guy sitting in front of a computer typing away certainly doesn't *seem* as violent or as dangerous as the guy with the truck full of TNT. The *reality* is he may have just as great a chance, he may be just as serious and just as dangerous to the rest of us.

Hmm, my opinion on the matter is that if the person is a Computer Nerd who holds themselves to the standard white hat hacker ethic, then I have nothing against them blowing up the HQ of some logging company who takes pleasure in devastating the rainforest, or the home of certain 'pre-paid' republican senators.

As long as innocents are not killed, why the hell not? I mean the barrier to entry is FAR higher then a truck full of TNT (which damned nearly any idiot can pull off) but actually managing to KILL somebody by computer hacking would require a damn fair bit of computer savvy, damn good planning;

and well hell, if your any good at it you won't get caught anyways so fuck it. LOL

That is the thing people, do not be afraid of the people who they DO catch, be afraid of the people whom they NEVER catch, and be even more afraid of the ones that they do not even /know/ about. Those are the ones that you really have to be afraid of.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[overunderunderdone]

Murder is (legally) murder, whatever the weapon.

Of course, of course, granted. But imagine these two different ways of using a computer as a weapon.

Scenario 1: Pick up computere -> Bludgeon victim with computer.

In this scenario I see no legal wiggle room for the perpetrator beyond those ususally associated with our screwed up legal system.

Scenario 2: Hack into traffic system -> Cause all traffic lights to be green in both directions around the city -> Family of five never before seen by perpetrator is rammed by an 18 wheeler.

In this scenario it just seems that there are more places for the perpetrator to manipulate the legal system. Despite the maliciousness of his intentions his crime has an element of indirect causation that bludgeoning the same family with a monitor wouldn't have. There many more "responsible" parties (the truckdriver, the city traffic department, whoever was responsible for the systems security) to be drawn into the case to muddy the water. You already see people all over slashdot blaming every malicious hack on the sap who was responsible for security. And that is perfectly fair, BUT at the same time they seem to give a pass to the actual perpetrator, "the door wasn't locked It's not my clients fault that he stole suff. -?!?!"

It's not that I think this law is a good idea. I suspect that it is NOT. But I am irritated by the lack of good faith debate, the alarmism, the conspiracy theories, the paranioa, the ignorance, all things slashdotters typically accuse congressmen of but seems to be more appropriately attributed to slashdot.

Granted, slashdot is not a very important forum compared to the US house & senate, but wouldn't intelligent conversation and debate be nice & more helpful in analysing the REAL pros and cons of this piece of legislation? Isn't it something we could expect from a presumably intelligent and educated & MODERATED group. (some of the most ignorant posts from people who obviously haven't the faintest clue about what the bill is actually about are +5 insightful because they hit the right hot-button buzz words)

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[operagost]

I don't what I sabotaged with that small sentence, but if you could look up past legislation that restricted firearms and tell me which side the sponsor leaned towards, I think you'll be amazed.

I don't suppose that every person leans to the left or right with every issue... for example, Elizabeth Dole is conservative with every issue EXCEPT gun control. I'd like to see you too try to find common ground :p

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[mesocyclone]

Hate crimes laws are as dumb as computer crimes laws. They are supercriminalization. As Bush pointed out, two of the three in the Jasper case were sentenced to death - without the need for a hate crimes law.

Motivation is already a factor in determining the crime (manslaughter vs. first degree murder, for example, both involve the killing of someone).

Hate crimes laws are simply a way of politicians pandering to minority groups, even though in the US (and France) the majority of "hate crimes" are committed by members of minority groups!

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[mesocyclone]

It is appropriate to penalize someone who intentionally causes death through hacking. It may even be necessary to make this a federal crime simply because local authorities would not have the capability to catch the perpetrator in an across-state-borders attack.

The obvious downside of this law is that it will be used when the situation isn't that serious. It would have to be a hack that endangered lives. If it were used against someone who just caused monetary damage, then it would be a sad day. After all, do you think the Enron and Andersen boys at the top are going to be spending life in prison? Hell, John Walker Lindh is only expeced to get 20 years.

Personally, I think that economic crimes should not have penalties as high as violent crimes, because we should treat life as more valuable than property.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[ryanwright]

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.
No, they're not.

I applied for a job at our local nuclear reactor. Went out for the interview and drove right up to the admin building. The reactor itself was fifty feet away, on the other side of the parking lot. No gates, no fences, no guards. Other than the prox card system to get in the main door, I likely could have waltzed right in.

Now, maybe there was a guard just inside the main door of the reactor complex itself, I don't know. I didn't go in there. But there was no fence, nobody guarding the property, nothing of the sort. There was a small fence around the cooling towers but I could have hopped over it easily...

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[1729]

See, this is one of the things that I hate about the gun-rights crowd: it sabotages itself with this kind of crap.

I'm a liberal Democrat. Hell, I'm probably on the left wing of what most people consider liberal Democrats. I support abortion rights, gay rights, gay marriage, Head Start, massive health care reform, stricter environmental regulations, getting "Under God" out of the Pledge, etc.

I'm also an NRA and JPFO member.

I fully agree. Whenever I go into a gun store or read a gun magazine, the pro-gun propaganda always seems to be infused with racism, homophobia, ultra-right-wing religious extremism, etc. That alienates me, even though I am a 2nd amendment defender. I think that many people who could be sympathetic to the gun-rights cause are lost due to this "gun rights = right-wing-extremism" perception.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Coz]

If you look, you'll see that this legislation takes existing law and tunes it - they're not adding pages to the US Code, they're revising it - the same thing you do to your code base.

Don't you wish you could make (l)users go to jail for some of the dumb stuff they've pulled? ;)

As for the need for anti-"cyber" stuff - people spend a lot of time and energy on this forum complaining about how obsolete the law is compared with technology. Well, the Congresscritters have just taken a step forward. Maybe not in the direction we the "techno-elite" would like, but they moved. You don't like it? Get out and vote!

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[cduffy]

Scenario 2: Hack into traffic system -> Cause all traffic lights to be green in both directions around the city -> Family of five never before seen by perpetrator is rammed by an 18 wheeler.

That would be a reckless, premeditated act demonstrating extreme indifference to human life, and probably showing intent to inflict grevious bodily harm. If it could be shown that the act was done purposely or knowingly wishing to harm others, it would almost certainly meet the legal definition of murder 1. If it was not done purposely or knowingly, there are other categories of murder (and such crimes as voluntary manslaughter) better fitted to the act.

If you can "muddy the water" as for the recklessness of that act, or its premeditated status, or the intent reflected... well, then we can discuss issues with the standing definition of murder as applied to the crime you suggest. Otherwise, I suggest that you may be taking the position you do out of the same ignorance of which you accuse others.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[jafac]

why we need to crack down on "Cyber Terrorists"? I thought it was the regular, box-cutter-weilding, gun-toting, bomb-making kind that were giving us problems lately

IMHO it's the suit-wearing book-cooking insider-trading politician-bribing type of terrorist who has done FAR more harm to the US than those silly inconsequential ragheads. Stocks have plummetted far lower, and stayed down far longer due to "accounting fraud worries" than they ever were from Sept 11.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[joshyc]

You don't see my point. I'm saying that if it's morally questionable and you shouldn't do it, you just shouldn't do it regardless of the legal penalty. I suppose what is morally questionable is up for debate, but unwanted trespass into another's intellectual property certainly counts. In real life when you see a lot that says no trespassing, it's illegal to go into that lot regardless of what you plan to do in it, even if you just want to walk across it to get to a place opposite of where you are in regards to the lot. So if you don't tresspass, you have no reason to worry about the penalty for trespassing. That's all I'm saying. The purpose of a law is(ideally) not to punish unlawful activity, but to prevent unlawful activity. Computer geeks need to find some other hobby than sitting at the computer challenging encryption keys. How about outdoors contact sports, or reading that book you've always wanted to read?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Kintanon]

No one should get a life sentance for a Morally Questionable action though. There's no need for new laws to be put into place specifically to address some mythical activity that the government classifies as 'hacking'. There are already Trespass laws, theft laws, vandalism laws, and plenty of other real world laws that apply just fine to computer related activities.

Kintanon

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[cosyne]

And now it is illegal to kill someone using a computer

Well, wait, if this is only about killing people by hacking, then I should still be able to off my enemies by crushing them under Big Iron, right?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Grax]

IANAL but I believe physically dropping a computer on someone would be considered an illegal murder under current murder statutes.

I don't think it would be a federal crime unless you threw the computer at them across a state line or threw the computer at them because of their race or sexuality.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[LafinJack]

I just wanted to mention that your sig was cut off. What's it supposed to say?

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Transcendent]

what the fuck is IHMO?!?!

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[overunderunderdone]

I suggest that you may be taking the position you do out of the same ignorance of which you accuse others.

As I said before IANAL and I've freely admitted my ignorance (though I did at least look at the text of the bill).

My scenario was inept. My larger point was that a this law deserves a closer analysis than "House OK's life sentances for hackers" there MIGHT be areas of the existing law that it clarifies. I don't know that this is the case and in fact SAID that I suspect that this law is NOT necessary, simply that it was worth debating rather than knee-jerk hysterical opposition because it mentions computers being used for a crime (which we all know is the same as making it illegal to run linux ;)

After looking over this thread I realise that I owe you an apology. Throughout, your opposition to the bill has been based on a rational position & not the idiocy elswhere on slashdot. I have been unfairly using you as a foil to address attitudes and positions that aren't really yours. If you'll indulge me to do it one last time. If the argument against this bill is that it is unnecessary because it is *redundant* then obviously it can't also be the argument against the bill that it is taking away rights you previously enjoyed.

I honestly don't know if it is totally unnecessary or not. I can concieve of the possiblity that it could clarify situations that are currently unclear. Or if the existing law is clear to lawyers the proposed law performs something like an educational/cultural role making it explicit to the general population. I'm sure vehicular homicid laws are also totally redundant from a legal standpoint but they serve a function by making it clear to the stupid that a car (or a computer) can be a weapon, so don't be fooled by the illusion that your crime is only "and accident" (or "virtual"). While there may be no grey areas in the application of the existing laws to computers I am convinced that many malicious "hackers" are laboring under the false sense that much of what they do somehow doesn't count/isn't real. Even if the laws only effect is the underscore that it IS real that is some benefit.

Then again, even as I make that argument I am not convinced that such marginal benefits are worth adding more lines to our already bloated law books.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[AVee]

It's IMHO, In My Humble Opinion

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[cduffy]

If the argument against this bill is that it is unnecessary because it is *redundant* then obviously it can't also be the argument against the bill that it is taking away rights you previously enjoyed.

Agreed -- sort of.

The bill establishes a commission to review and create sentencing guidelines for computer crimes, and instructs them to take into account the same criteria presently in use for all crimes. What this has the potential to create is a set of new laws which covers a subset of crimes which already have fair and reasonable laws covering them, but which (under the new laws) have slightly different punishments, have a different set of defenses available, have different guidelines, etc.

This proliferation is dangerous as it makes it more difficult for the common man to understand the law -- and, for that matter, more difficult for lawyers as well. One shouldn't need a different lawyer for a computer-involved murder as opposed to any other, just as one should never need to hire a lawyer specialized in defense against charges of stabbing. Additionally, this law is also worrisome as it takes what was once a crime against the state and unnecessarily makes it a federal matter.

Finally, I doubt very much that many malicious hackers believe that they can't be prosecuted for their crimes because the laws don't apply to them -- many more, I suspect, believe they can't be prosecuted simply because they can't be caught. The best way to demonstrate their vulnerability to being located and prosecuted is not addition of new law which could be as easily ignored. Rather, a few well-publicized prosecutions would do this job far better.

Re:Has hacking ever killed anyone?

[Transcendent]

thanks

Okay, this is pretty much it.

[BadmanX]

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.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[linzeal]

Overthrow the government, revolutionary.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[stevenbee]

the day when you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a computer

... To commit certain crimes. In other words, Its not the fact that you are using the computer, but how you use it.

Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot soda cans off a fence != crime

Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot someone in the face == crime

Heated hyperbole will not help to advance your cause; only a reasoned consideration of the issues will.
I now jump off my soapbox.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Chilles]

English is not my native language so sometimes when I don't know a word I have to guess it's meaning from the context. The last year or so I have come to the following:

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.
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.

From your post I see my self guessed definitions are pretty close to the real meaning of those words. (and boy will the world be a quiet place when the American government finally decides there's peace)

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[swaic]

such as to fuck about with multi-billion dollar transactions

So what about those Enron and Worldcom folks? I don't think they used a couple pencils and an abacus. All their doings were through the use of computers. You may have a point here. However, the odds of the feds seeing it that way are pretty much non-existent. Essentially, you stand a better chance of seeing Osama eating bacon cheeseburgers at McDonalds, listening to Britney Spears, wearing an I LOVE NY tee shirt.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[TheConfusedOne]

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.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[0x0d0a]

Most Americans have reached pretty much the same conclusion. The "War on Terror" was popular at first, but after the Taleban fell and Bush started using it as an excuse to do whatever the hell he felt like, a lot of people (myself included) are getting more than a little frusterated with him.

God, I wish McCain was in the White House instead of this idiot.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Beautyon]

And thanks to the USTASI, you will be caught more redily. Everyone should study the original STASI of East Germany, to see its effects on that society, the way that people interacted with each other under it, and how brother could not trust brother in that aweful informant system.

Of course, it will be even worse when someone is reporting what they think is a malicious hacker, because computer illiteracy is as widespread as reading and writing illiteracy was in the Medireview days.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Just because the "weapon" is different shouldn't change anything.

Recall that recently, certain charges were dropped against Massoui because a commercial airliner was not specifically mentioned as a 'means of transportation' in the applicable federal law. It's not a waste of ink to spell out the new versions of old crimes that can be committed with new technology.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[JTFritz]

Consider this:

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. Not only that, but he will probably get parole in less than 10 years.

However, under this new bill, someone like Kevin Mitnick would see life in prison.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[TheConfusedOne]

In that case then it's merely laziness on the part of the prosecutors. It could very easily be argued that planes do in fact qualify.

This is really what the appeals court structure is for. The idea is to take existing laws and precedent and apply them to new situations. You haven't seen a spate of law rewrites to specifically mention SUV's or something like that. The idea is to prove that the general applies to the specific, not to keep getting more and more specific.

So, do you think they'll define "computer" too broadly or too narrowly in the law?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

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.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

However, under this new bill, someone like Kevin Mitnick would see life in prison.

Did he attempt to cause death? No? Then this bill wouldn't affect him.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[MrFredBloggs]

"better chance of seeing Osama eating bacon cheeseburgers at McDonalds, listening to Britney Spears, wearing an I LOVE NY tee shirt"

Make it a Gooners shirt and you`re there:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_446671.html

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Come up with a better example than that.

None required. My response was to a comment that a law doesn't have to specifically mention every method of committing a crime. The Mossaui case was, and is, a perfect example of a law that was found to be lacking because it didn't mention a specific method of committing a crime. The fact that he has also been charged with other crimes is irrelevant.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Yes, but you're guessing that Johnny Walker will be able to survive even those 10 years before parole (which, if I recall, he isn't eligible for anyway based on the deal).

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[stinky wizzleteats]

Heated hyperbole will not help to advance your cause; only a reasoned consideration of the issues will.

Your point is well formed (and right), but as someone who does expert witness testimony in criminal defense cases, I feel compelled to point out that if you change the sentence to "..use a computer the way 99% of Slashdotters use computers", it would be dead on.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Pave Low]

What utter garbage. If you have any evidence that nonviolent groups of people that are not attempting to kill civilian non-combatants deliberately are considered terrorists by the US government or population, please show me. Otherwise you are seeing a bogeyman that just doesn't exist.

And please tell me what every basic human rights do terrorists have. They are not representatives of any state and do not act under directions from any, and do not observe general rules of war. What rights should they have if they do not obey any rules?

At least you got the third definition right.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Hektor_Troy]

Because the government said so. Now shut up, and be a good little suppressed citizen, or we'll lock you up for being a potential terrorist.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[thales]

Try being a member of a PARAMILITARY group that is engaged in warfare with the US. If the little traitor had limited his actions to political support of the Taliban regime, he wouldn't have been charged.

The Talibandit "offer" mirrored a similar "offer" to turn OBL over after proof was supplied that he was involved in an attack on a US Navy ship. The Talibandits turned the information over to OBL, allow him to discover that his satelite phone was being montered, and cutting off a means of gathering information on Al Qaeda actions.

As for the US sitting up the Talibandit regime, they were formed AFTER the USA ended involvement in Afghanistan. They overthrew the people we supported during the Soviet War.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

My response was to a comment that a law doesn't have to specifically mention every method of committing a crime. The Mossaui case was, and is, a perfect example of a law that was found to be lacking because it didn't mention a specific method of committing a crime.

And here's where we have to bemoan the death of the "reasonable citizen" doctrine. It used to be the case that obvious extensions -- that, for instance, an airplane is a "means of transportation" -- would happen without trouble. The assumption was exactly that the principle of the law was what mattered, and that an uncontrolled proliferation of narrowly-specific laws would actually undermine justice rather than serve it.

Of course, under such a system, any reasonably intelligent person could learn the law on his/her own (Abraham Lincoln, anyone?) and not have to buy into the whole self-propagating system. So of course that had to be changed...

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[elefantstn]

I can't believe a post with so many blatant factual errors was actually modded up.

1) The US was not at war with, but considered the Taliban illegitimate rulers of Afghanistan prior to the attacks. When they started helping people kill Americans, the US went to war with them. (Oh, the horrible imperialism).
2) The Taliban only offered to extradite OBL to another country operating under Sharia (i.e. Muslim religious) law. The only other country that is fully operating under Sharia is Iran.
3) The US government did not help to establish the Taliban. And please do not attempt to say "But they gave them $43 million last year!" because they didn't. That $43 million was grain, medicine, and aid to the people of Afghanistan who were starving due to famine.
4) Being a member of political party in a foreign country is not a crime. Shooting at American soldiers is.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

Because the government said so. Now shut up, and be a good little suppressed citizen,...

Hah, my government didn't say so!

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

Try being a member of a PARAMILITARY group

What's the difference between paramilitary, and military? Why do you classify taleban as para-?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

When they started helping people kill Americans, the US went to war with them.

When, exactly, was the official declaration of war?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[zerocool^]

The US were never at war with the Taleban

Not only that, but we've NEVER been at war with the Taliban, or mabey I've missed the official declaration of war passed by both houses and signed by the president.

Last war we were in was World War II, folks. We don't call it war when we bomb brown people or yellow people. Only white people get the honor of officially having war declared on them.

~Will

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[anthony_dipierro]

Recall that recently, certain charges were dropped against Massoui because a commercial airliner was not specifically mentioned as a 'means of transportation' in the applicable federal law.

So what? We don't need to charge him with breaking 950,000 different laws. If he was getting away with something without having any law apply, then you might have a point.

For instance, a man can punch a pregnant woman in the stomach repeatedly, causing her to have a miscarriage, and the worst crime he can be charged with in many states is simple assault.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[thales]

They are a self described Milita, without the formal training and command structure of a regular military group, like an Army.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[elefantstn]

How can Congress declare war against a non-state?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

Once again, we impose our western definitions on other cultures, and refuse to respect them because they don't live by our terminology. I wonder why they hate us?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[SageLikeFool]

I really like how they always use his full name, including the middle one. Usually that is reserved for assassins (Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth, etc).

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Anonymous Coward]

A terrorist has every single basic human right that you have. The fact that he or she has or may commit a terrorist attack doesn't allow the US government or anyone else for that matter to unilaterally revoke their basic human rights, just because they don't take instructions from some recognized state somewhere. Who are you to determine what rights someone deserves? War has changed and the classic "Rules of War" don't seem to be aplicable much anymore.
In the face of a terrorist threat, some people feel lisenced to do whatever possible to avert that threat, right down to committing what, if turned around, would also be seen as a terrorist attack.
I wouldn't be too quick to exonerate the US government for their actions.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[LordNightwalker]

The difference is that a terrorist uses violent means to force his will upon others, especially other races/nationalities in which he has no business interfering.

Well well, this sheds some new light on the whole discussion... So in fact, what you're saying is that the United States Army, and their cronies in the UN are in fact all terrorists?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[elefantstn]

You are such an idiot. I'm really sorry that English has separate words for rigidly maintained military groups and loosely organized military groups. I'm sure that's "why they hate us."

"Osama! I read USA Today, and they described us as a 'paramilitary group'!"
"What?! The outrage! They will pay for their crimes!"

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

I'm really sorry that English has separate words for rigidly maintained military groups and loosely organized military groups. I'm sure that's "why they hate us."

Thales' SHOUTING of the word 'paramilitary' was clearly derogatory.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Bobzibub]

"You actually think Americans call anyone who has a differing opinion a terrorist?"
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the term: "Freedom Fighter".

So Jews are justified to live on land b/c they evicted others by force. Palastinians are *not* justified to live because jews were evicted by force.

Arabs are *evil* b/c of war to take over land. Jews *rightfully* conquered land through war.

You Sir, are a logical three ring circus.

-b

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[thales]

Which part of "self defined", do you fail to understand? The Talibandits have allways refered to themselves as the "Taliban Militia"

BTW they hate the fawning Liberals whom they refer to as "Atheists" more than the militant right wing Christians who say nasty things about them.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[thales]

They are proud of being "paramilirary" and don't consider it derogatory. When I refer to the Talibandits as "Talibandits" is the part they would consider "derogatory"

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[alexborges]

--quote--
If you have any evidence that nonviolent groups of people that are not attempting to kill civilian non-combatants deliberately are considered terrorists by the US government or population, please show me.
--quote--

Well.... this is dragging the cat out....happened a long time ago.... also, it should be noted that there have also been legitimate uve se of force from the US, they have been attacked and they have retaliated....but this has not allways been the case...

0.- Chile (US supported age of terror)
1.- Argentina (US supported age of terror)
2.- Nicaragua (US supported age of terror)
3.- El Salvador (US supported age of terror)
4.- Plenty African Countries and CIVILIANS...remember the 'mistake' of the aspirin plant?

Another definition for you:

Army: Organization made for the legitimate use of force.

US Army: Organization whose primary objective is to protect american interest everywhere through the use of force.

To portray an example:
In Nicaragua, US Army trained right wing government special army units specifically for the task of counter guerrilla activities. A quick run through the manual of such military concept will tell you that this means basically the use of the military to do state terrorism, eliminating the popular base of the guerrilla. This meant genocide of whole towns.

So there....hows that for an example.

Alex

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[alexborges]

Although you may be right historically, you also have to accept that this 'rage' of the roman emperor happened what, 1500 years ago??

This is like saying US should give back all dakota/florida/texas/arizona...etc. to the native americans/mexicans that used to 'own' or had more 'right' to be there....

They all got fucked less than 500 years ago and noone disputes america's right to this land.

Israel is an artificial state created out of the terrible things done to the Jewish nation in the past century (when, quite frankly, they had suffered this in many other countries before -take spain in Isabel reign for example).

I think they should all learn to live together. But this wont happens until both (okay, ALL) parties involved accept that noone has really more right than the other to be there.

Now, dont come tell me that this pour Israelis have such a bad time when they are unnarmed and almost wiped out by ak47's of evil arabs.

Not so, no way, Israel is a violent state, invests a whole lot of money in weaponry (to 'defend' themselves...yadda,yadda). Right wing israelis killed their own prime minister, right wind israelis wouldnt even blink at the thought of sistematically killing all palestinians the same way hitler killed jews. They would create their own concentration camps....

Probably most right wing palestinians yern for such a thing to happen again to. And theyd kill all jews as well.

So you see....the problem is not who 'deserves' to be there. NEITHER of them do. In fact, MOST nations have come to be as a result of wiping/killing/raping other cultures.

The israeli/palestine conflict should be resolved from acceptance of the first fact: we are only humans, resources are limited, we cant kill each other anymore with the purpose of eliminating each other (this used to work, but now with globalization and all it wouldnt be possible).

It should also come from the acceptance of both parties that theyve killed each other for millenia, and wish to stop (which is doubtful in any account).

Alex

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Dalcius]

Putting a karma point on the line to point out good info by an AC:

Mod parent up +5 informative. =)

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[sql*kitten]

The US was not at war with, but considered the Taliban illegitimate rulers of Afghanistan prior to the attacks. When they started helping people kill Americans, the US went to war with them.

The Taleban were no more to do with the Sept 11 attacks than the people of Scotland were to do with Lockerbie. Their only obligation to Osama bin Laden is that he is a brother Moslem and the Qu'ran says if you take in a guest, you are responsible for protecting him.

And the US simply didn't recognise the Taleban as a functioning government. They never tried to depose them before the current invasion.

The Taliban only offered to extradite OBL to another country operating under Sharia (i.e. Muslim religious) law. The only other country that is fully operating under Sharia is Iran.

Or the US client state, Saudi Arabia.

The US government did not help to establish the Taliban. And please do not attempt to say "But they gave them $43 million last year!" because they didn't. That $43 million was grain, medicine, and aid to the people of Afghanistan who were starving due to famine.

Sure they did, the US government funded, trained and equipped the organization that would later become the Taleban during the Soviet occupation.

Being a member of political party in a foreign country is not a crime. Shooting at American soldiers is.

Hey, they shot at him first.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[elefantstn]

And the US simply didn't recognise the Taleban as a functioning government. They never tried to depose them before the current invasion.

They also imposed sanctions on the government, attempting to depose them without starting a war. Unfortunately, it came to that.

And if you buy the Taliban party line about hospitality, you're pretty gullible. He was practically running the country, by virtue of his using his vast economic resources to fund the cash-poor Taliban regime.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[sql*kitten]

And if you buy the Taliban party line about hospitality, you're pretty gullible. He was practically running the country, by virtue of his using his vast economic resources to fund the cash-poor Taliban regime.

I find that unlikely - for example, al-Queda are reputed to have trafficked heroin to fund their operations, but the Taleban were busily destroying poppy fields as being un-Islamic.

The players in this game are the US government and al-Queda - the Taleban are victims.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[elefantstn]

I find that unlikely - for example, al-Queda are reputed to have trafficked heroin to fund their operations, but the Taleban were busily destroying poppy fields as being un-Islamic.

I'm not sure what in the hell you're talking about. It doesn't matter how Al Qaeda's money was obtained (and heroin trafficking was just a part of it), it matters what it was used for, namely funding the ruling Taliban in exchange for protection.

The players in this game are the US government and al-Queda - the Taleban are victims.

No, the victims were the women in Afghanistan who were not allowed even to go to school.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[atolicus]

You people to get your head out of your well protected from and real danger asses and take a good look at the real world. This is not some happy go lucky candy land where everything will work out in the end.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Bootsy Collins]

The Taleban were no more to do with the Sept 11 attacks than the people of Scotland were to do with Lockerbie. Their only obligation to Osama bin Laden is that he is a brother Moslem and the Qu'ran says if you take in a guest, you are responsible for protecting him.

You can't be serious. Are you actually suggesting that the Taliban had no idea whatsoever that bin Laden and his merry band of pranksters hadn't set up a plethora of terrorist training camps, hadn't been using them to train terrorists, and hadn't been dispatching the students abroad to commit terrorism? Because if they did, then their guilt extends beyond your statement.

And the US simply didn't recognise the Taleban as a functioning government. They never tried to depose them before the current invasion.

That's correct -- the US didn't recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. Nor, for that matter, did the country from which you're posting. Nor did the UN. Nor did any other countries on the entire planet, except for Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. The US, Great Britain, etc., didn't attack the legitimate government; they supported the legitimate government -- whom they did recognize -- in its ongoing civil war.

> The Taliban only offered to extradite OBL to
> another country operating under Sharia (i.e.
> Muslim religious) law. The only other country
> that is fully operating under Sharia is Iran.

Or the US client state, Saudi Arabia.

Oh, please. First of all, while it's certainly the case that in certain specific ways, the U.S.-Saudi relationship is close, it is utterly absurd to refer to Saudi Arabia as a U.S. client state. If that were true, one would expect the Saudi government to defer to the U.S. more often, especially on issues of extreme importance to the U.S. government. Instead, they rarely do, especially with regards to the topic currently of greatest interest to the U.S. government -- investigations of terrorism. They have not cooperated with the FBI in its investigations of the Saudi Sept. 11 terrorists. They refused to allow U.S. investigators to even speak to those arrested by Saudi authorities for the Khobar Towers bombing, under any terms or circumstances at all. Efforts to shut down money-laundering pathways which have led through Saudi Arabia have been met by stone walls. Client state, indeed.

Secondly, while the legal and penal systems in Saudia Arabia can certainly be extreme in their severity, it is incorrect to refer to them as an implementation of Sharia. In fact, the fact that it isn't has been given as one of bin Laden's gripes against the Saudi ruling family. The implication of your response above -- that if the U.S. had simply coughed up their evidence to the Taliban, they would have been perfectly happy to turn him over to the Saudis -- is patently absurd. Both bin Laden and the Taliban had stated that they consider the official Saudi government as an impediment to be overthrown, as they see it wrong for such a corrupt entity to control the land of Mecca and Medina . . .but the Taliban would have turned over bin Laden to the Saudi government? Be serious.

(even assuming the Saudis would take him, since they refused once in the past -- oh, wait, that couldn't have happened, they're a client state, I forgot)

> The US government did not help to establish
> the Taliban. And please do not attempt to
> say "But they gave them $43 million last
> year!" because they didn't. That $43 million
> was grain, medicine, and aid to the people
> of Afghanistan who were starving due to
> famine.

Sure they did, the US government funded, trained and equipped the organization that would later become the Taleban during the Soviet occupation.

More silliness. Your statement is the logical equivalent of saying that the UK (through Lawrence of Arabia) funded, trained, and equipped the folks that later became Hizbollah during World War I. Yes, the U.S. provided military aid to the muhjahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation. Yes, a small fraction of those folks, well after the U.S. was gone, organized the core of the Taliban. The jump from there to suggesting that the U.S. "helped establish the Taliban" suggests a fairly bizarre approach to interpreting history.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[whopis]

Army: Organization made for the legitimate use of force. US Army: Organization whose primary objective is to protect american interest everywhere through the use of force.

We could add a few more:

British Army: Organization whose primary objective is to protect british interest everywhere through the use of force.

Russian Army: Organization whose primary objective is to protect russian interest everywhere through the use of force.

Pakistan Army: Organization whose primary objective is to protect pakistani interest everywhere through the use of force.

* Army: Organization whose primary objective is to protect * interest everywhere through the use of force.

You know what? That's the way the world works. A nation's army is used to defend its interests. The use of the US Army to take whatever actions are needed to protect US civilians against attack is not only justified, but mandated by the foundations of our government.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

They are proud of being "paramilirary" and don't consider it derogatory.

The point is, you appeared to be dissing them (and Lindh's association with them) based on your perceived position of western superiority. How they feel about the term itself isn't the point.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[alexborges]

Mhm.... I dont see your point.... I um....in the risk of my own karma... completely agree with you.

Someone asked for an example, i gave many, thats it.

Now, that its moraly acceptable to have trained ppl to murder civilians in lieu of the interest of the American Fruit Co., to have supported a regime that killed Jews and Communists without problems (Chile), to have given money to the many bloodthirsty dictatorships in LA is something that the american military/state/nation/public should think about..... or not.

I personally think that, in general, they dont give a flying fuck as long as it doesnt happen in Virginia.

Alex

P.S. I should now direct you to The Fifth Liberty By Noham Chomsky (yes...languages GAWD too).

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[jazman_777]

Even then, the Taleban offered to extradite OBL if the US could offer any evidence that he was involved.

Is there any evidence yet?

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[jazman_777]

Not only that, but we've NEVER been at war with the Taliban, or mabey I've missed the official declaration of war passed by both houses and signed by the president.

The Congress making a declaration is just a formality anyway. The edicts of our Great and Glorious Ultimate God-like Leader (aka Caesar, aka Tsar) are what count.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[thales]

"I find that unlikely - for example, al-Queda are reputed to have trafficked heroin to fund their operations, but the Taleban were busily destroying poppy fields as being un-Islamic."

Wrong. Al Qaeda is mainly financed by OBL and his supporters in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban were the ones dealing in Opium (not Herion) and the destruction of the poppy fields was in exchange for argicultural development money from the UN. They didn't destroy their stockpiles of Opium however, which dosen't say much for their belief that opium selling was unislamic.

"The players in this game are the US government and al-Queda - the Taleban are victims"

Al Qaeda, (the Base)is a group of organizations, one of which happened to be the Taliban. Al Qaeda was the de facto ruler of Afghanistn. Calling the Taliban a victim in this war is as absurd as claiming the SS were victims in a power dispute between the Nazi Party and the UK.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[operagost]

If the Palestinians want to take it, they can try, and continue to kill innocent people. I don't understand you people who think it should be given to them. Obviously, you subscribe to the idea 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', and your hatred for Jews leads you to embrace the bloody Arab cause.

Let me explain it another way since it's too difficult for you to understand. There are two arguments:

1. The Jews have no right to the land because they are weak. Answer: 1967.
2. The Jews have no right to the land because we say so. Answer: 1948.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[operagost]

The US controls the UN... that's a laugh. I wish we could get out of that useless organization. The US has turned into the world's police force, and everyone hates the police but they call them everytime a fight or disaster breaks out.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[terrymr]

Actually the UN mandate split the land between Israel & Palestine - neither had their own country until then.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[terrymr]

None required. My response was to a comment that a law doesn't have to specifically mention every method of committing a crime. The Mossaui case was, and is, a perfect example of a law that was found to be lacking because it didn't mention a specific method of committing a crime. The fact that he has also been charged with other crimes is irrelevant.

Actually the law in question did mention a specific method committing a crime which did not involve aircraft - so in effect the law was too specific for the crime in question.

If you pass a law which imposes a tougher pentalty for murders committed with a frozen banana one would not expect it to apply to murders committed by computer.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[Jagasian]

Your broad generalizations of people into groups such as "Palestinians" and "Jews" shows that you are nothing more than a racist. Many innocent people have lost their homes, friends, family, and their own lives in all of this crap going on in the "Holy Lands". These innocent people are found within the group you call "Palestinians" and the group you call "Jews". Furthermore, these innocent people were violated by evil people belonging to the group you call "Palestinians" and the group you call "Jews".

From a moral point of view, its best to debate about the middle east in terms of specific people. Otherwise you only contribute to the xenophobia, racism, genocide, and terrorism committed by the evil people of this world.

Just because a subset of Jews violates the human rights of Palestinians, it does not mean that Jews are evil. Furthermore, just because a subset of Palestinians violates the human rights of Jews, it does not mean that Palestinians are evil. Such gross generalizations of people into "Jews", "Pals", and "Arabs" only blurs the real issue and worsens the problem.

Remember that Jesus said that your neighbor is someone who shows you mercy. Not someone who belongs to the correct ethnic group. So lets stop this Israeli/Palestinian he said/she said crap. I mean, don't you think the world's paradigm for the holy lands might be the reason why peace has yet to be found? Until we realize that specific people commit crimes against humanity, not ethnic groups, and until we realize that tit-for-tat "retaliation" only continues the cycle of violence... peace will not come.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[thales]

1. Wahibism is an Islamic sect and is about 200 years old, the extreamist version of Wahibism practiced by the Talibandits and Al Qaeda is about 75 years old. Neither of these sects is part of the type of Sunni Islam that is part of the traditional culture of Afghanistan and the majority of the Islamic world.

2. The extreamists make a regular habit of denouncing Western culture as Evil, Materalistic, Greedy, Godless, and many other insulting terms. I await your denouncal of mideastern superiority, but won't be holding my breath.

3. Treating Women as Chattel, Mutulating criminals and persucuting religous minorities is abhorant, and I don't give a damn if it's part of their culture, I'll continue to denounce abhorant practices in the strongest terms. Excusing this because of "culture" would be like excusing a revival of slavery and burning witches as returning to western culture's traditional values.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[robolemon]

Here are the crimes that John Walker Lindh was accused of (source: the actual official conviction document):

• Conspiracy of U.S. Nationals
• Conspiracy to Provide Material Support & Resources to Foreign Terrorist Organizations (2 counts)
• Providing Material Support & Resources to Foreign Terrorist Organizations (2 counts)
• Conspiracy to Contribute Services to al Qaeda
• Contributing Services to al Qaeda
• Conspiracy to Supply Services to the Taliban
• Supplying Services to the Taliban
• Using and Carrying Firearms and Destructive Devices During Crimes of Violence

First off, all of these are crimes under the U.S. Code. Second off, they never accuse him of joining a "political party" anywhere in those crimes. You could argue that they are political parties, but under current federal law they are defined as "terrorists groups" and that is all that the court can consider.

He most certainly was not tried for treason. If he had been convicted of treason, which is very difficult because it requires two witnesses to view the actual act of committing it (and affiliation alone is not an act). If he had been convicted, the only sentence possible is death (check your copy of the Constitution, as far as I can remember it's the only punishment spelled out directly in there). That will remain true unless an amendment is passed, and I don't think there are a lot of people ready to stand up for that cause.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

That's all fair enough, I took the OP's word that he is being put away for treason and being a member of the Taleban, the latter I didn't realise was inherently illegal. I'm bored of this thread now.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

1. Wahibism is an Islamic sect and is about 200 years old,

Created, or at least cultivated, by the British Empire in order to break the power of the Sultans, AIUI. It isn't just America that fucks up world politics, we did our share.

Re:Okay, this is pretty much it.

[PhilHibbs]

I can't believe a post with so many blatant factual errors was actually modded up.

I'm pretty surprised that what I said was doubly "insightful" too. I think it might have deserved an "interesting" at most.

Hmm...

[MiTEG]

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.

Re:Hmm...

[cthulhubob]

The answer is simple - it's perfectly in line with the expressed will of the U.S. government.

Capitalists value capital more than they do human life (otherwise they would be called "socialists"). Under this more-capitalist-every-day regime we've got at the moment, the penalties for stealing money (or even potential earnings, witness the DMCA) are much harsher than penalties for all but the most heinous murders.

Re:Hmm...

[Drizzten]

With the federalization of airport security, the never-ending barrage of new and intrusive legislation (DMCA, CBDTPA, CIPA, etc.) which erodes economic and civil liberty, the recently-placed tariffs on imported steel, a federal budget that grows larger every year, and so forth...your assertion that the United States is more capitalist every day is a joke. All the substantive advances (like the recent voucher ruling and the essence of last year's tax cuts) are offset by the system's inertia.

Capitalists value human life over everything else. Otherwise, how would capital and value be created without human reason to act upon the environment? Capitalists also value freedom over it's opposite (socialism) because that freedom allows humans to actually create and accumulate that capital.

Re:Hmm...

[Restil]

If she had trained her dogs to specifically kill someone, the sentence would have been far worse. Had she enticed or commanded the dogs to kill someone, her sentence would have been far worse. This case was negligence, basically leaving a dangerous animal in a position it could cause harm to others, but not intentionally causing that harm. Big difference.

-Restil

Re:Hmm...

[Fluid Truth]

That's nothing. Steal millions or billions of dollars from your employees, shareholders, or the general public, and you can get off (pretty much) scott-free.

Show me the hacker that's caused more problems that the Corporate Level Officers in some of the high profile accounting scams in the last year or so. I dare you.

Re:Hmm...

[cmstremi]

Of course. Because dog-bite victims don't own American senators. But the people that suffer the most from hackers (crackers) have shit-piles of cash and power.

This is obviously a law that's not 'for the welfare of the people'.

Re:Hmm...

[Bushipunk]

Who modded the previous post up to 3 and marked it insightful? What's insightful about saying that socialism is the opposite of freedom? Capital-S Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the State. Lower-case-s socialism is essentially the idea that things should be managed in the public interest.

And to say that Capitalists value human life above all else is simply foolish. If this were true, then why are many of the wealthiest, and thus ostensibly most successful, Capitalists in or heavily invested in industries that either specifically seek to destroy, or as a side effect destroy, human life? The weapons used by the army are manufactured by private industry, sold to the government for profit; so are many of the weapons used by terrorists. And let us not forget tobacco, selling poison as a pastime, and the countless corporations who pressure the government to reduce or remove limits on how much they can pollute, because it's cheaper then not polluting?

In theory, you may be right. From the perspective of elightened self-interest, a Capitalist (and thus, a Capitalist society) should value human life more than anything else. In theory, the same should be true of Socialism, but it's rarely worked out that way in either case.

Re:Hmm...

[slashclone]

The dog raising couple were white supremasists and the victim was a young lesbian, conicedence?

Wow.

[warmcat]

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.

Re:Wow.

[necrognome]

Well, it might be time for this American (subtype: US) to go "see the world." How's the market for server-side java programming where you live?

Re:Wow.

[WeedMonkey]

Well, it might be time for this American (subtype: US) to go "see the world." How's the market for server-side java programming where you live?

--
Let's get drunk and delete production data!

Actually it's not bad, but your .sig kind of rules you out for the job ;-)

Re:Wow.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

With the 150% exchange rate and the rapid exodus of web programmers from the US, you might as well live in Canada and fill the US void from there!

Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[GMontag451]

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.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[HermDog]

But I thought murder and attemped murder were already against the law and punishable by (theoretically) long prison terms, life prison terms and, in some states, death (at least in the case of accomplished rather than attempted murder).

Oh, looks like they are, just as you said. So why do we need a new law? Does it make a difference what tools are used? It can't see how it should.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Bartmoss]

Then why is a new law needed?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[BCoates]

This does make it a federal offense, while "ordinary" murder is a violation of state law in most cases, so the law's not a total noop.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[clickety6]

How can you tell that your government is doing something to combat terrorism unless they pass draconian new laws to show they are doing something?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[orthogonal]

It's "needed" so that Joe Congressman can claim he's "doing something" about a "problem" that Joe Constituent has heard Katie Couric say is "pretty bad".

Not unlike hate crime laws, which legislate additional penalties for already criminal acts based on the victim's membership in some group and the criminal's thoughts.

Assaulting me: 1 year.
Assaulting me because I'm Zoroastrian: 5 years.
Assaulting me by hitting me over the head with a computer: 10 years.

Passing feel-good laws that make a patchwork of justice: priceless!

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[AVee]

Assaulting me: 1 year.
Assaulting me because I'm Zoroastrian: 5 years.
Assaulting me by hitting me over the head with a computer: 10 years.

Passing feel-good laws that make a patchwork of justice: priceless!

Shouldn't that be timeless?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[jamie]

"Assaulting me because I'm Zoroastrian: 5 years"

Eh, clever, but we already have differing penalties "based on... the criminal's thoughts." If you kill me with no intention to do so, you're guilty of negligent manslaughter. If you kill me in a sudden fit of passion, you'll get second degree murder. If you kill me after having deliberately planned it, you're looking at first degree murder.

Personally I've never really understood the fuss over hate crimes. We should add another category to the list. Did you kill me because I'm Zoroastrian? Well, this murderous rage of yours is something which any number of other people in the world could also trigger for no reason other than minding their own business. So you are much more dangerous to the world-at-large than the dude who accidentally runs over Timmy, or kills his wife in a sudden fit of anger, or who kills just one person for some life-situation of his that is not likely to happen again. You -- you're going to be an equal and continuing danger to every other Zoroastrian you happen to run across.

And if you're more dangerous to society, you should be locked up for longer. Duh.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Alric]

I imagine that the Treasury Department and Justice Department want to be able to claim jurisdiction quickly and easily in these cases, and now they can cite a federal crime being committed. Of course the feel-good nature of the legislation is helpful to the politicians.

Alric.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[thales]

"Then why is a new law needed?"

Because it's an election year, and Joe Congressman needs the law to show the voters he's tough on terrorist hackers.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Peyna]

Which makes sense, because such an incident is almost always going to cross state and possibly even international borders. Or could occur within many states. Thus, putting it under federal jurisdiction makes sense.

The whole being able to spy on you without a court order part is what bothers me!

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Yohahn]

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)

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[gosand]

Then why is a new law needed?

Well, logically there wouldn't need to be a new law. But you are forgetting, lawyers will wiggle through any available hole. It could be argued that you can't actually murder someone through a computer because it isn't quite a tangible thing. The new law is probably just to plug that hole.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

If there is a life sentence for computer hacking why isn't there one for mallicious cooking of the books?

Answer: Because it's embarassing to have the President and Vice President locked up on Death Row.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[maniac1860]

Many people on slashdot say that code is speech, and some court decisions seem to support this. Perhaps people are afraid hacking and killing someone could be downgraded to incitment of murder?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Jeppe Salvesen]

If it doesn't introduce anything, it's harmless and irrelevant. If it plugs loopholes, all the better. Can you see a way that the definition of the crime could be abused to criminalize innocent behaviour? Anyone?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Jeppe Salvesen]

As a matter of fact, they probably ruined more lives than the jets in WTC did. How many people lost their savings and pensions on Enron, Worldcom and Arthur Andersen? While it is extremely sad to lose someone you love, the effect of losing all your money is much more tangible. Yep. I'm arguing that from an impact-on-society point of view, fraud is worse than murder. Am I losing it?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[zangdesign]

Well, if you're really a cynic, fraud IS worse than murder.

Murder causes the cessation of life (a horrible act in and of itself) but one which carries no further consequences for the victim, since he/she/it has no further earthly concerns.

On the other hand, fraud hurts the victim for an indefinitely long period of time, since he/she/it still has earthly concerns and obligations that must be met in order to maintain some standard of living.

So perhaps our priorities are wrong: economic crimes should be capital crimes, and murder should be the lesser of the two.

If you want to get really cynical about it, the murderer has actually done the victim a favor, since the world and everyone in it are worthless bags of intemperately violent meat.

But if I said that, then I'd be condoning murder.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[prizog]

If you're losing it, you're in good company. Dane put fraud further down in Hell than murder, with betrayal at the very bottom.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Jeppe Salvesen]

With murder, there are multiple victims. I know you're cynical and unlovable, but there are other people that are nice and have people that care about them. So, in that respect, the direct victim suffers the least (unless there is prolonged torture before the victim dies).

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[MAXOMENOS]

Answer: Because it's embarassing to have the President and Vice President locked up on Death Row.

The death penalty in the United States is usually reserved for murderers and traitors. And even if you could get a murder conviction, there's still the question of whether Bush is mentally retarded or not.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[brad3378]

> Then why is a new law needed?

Because it makes the Politicians feel good about themselves. (not to mention it draws away attention from the economy)

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[DavesError]

The new law is needed for that sneaky eavsdropping without a court order clause. That's why the new law is needed. They know that most other things are already covered, so they want to be able to slip a little something extra in there.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Stonehand]

Somebody who kills /random/ people, and thus endangers an entire society, will get a lower sentence than somebody who kills only elderly African-American Zoroasterians (set cardinality probably VERY small). The "more dangerous" argument doesn't even step, let alone fly.

That didn't matter, because it's really just a political sop to favoured constituencies.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[joshyc]

I read somewhere that Bush has an IQ of 77. On television the other day there was a debate over whether retards should get the death penalty or not - it was brought up that in some states the IQ of a person who is legally retarded is something like 67.... so Bush is almost there. I figure I'll distract the secret service while someone sneaks up on him and knocks him over the head a bit with a plank... Not too hard though, we only need 10 points... then he'll be legally retarded!

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[jazman_777]

How can you tell that your government is doing something to combat terrorism unless they pass draconian new laws to show they are doing something?

I am sure Osama bin Laden's elite hacking squads are now _very_ scared.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[orthogonal]

we already have differing penalties "based on... the criminal's thoughts." [e.g., basing different categories of homicides on intent]

True. No argument there.

But differentiating between first degree murder and a lesser homicide charges is -- pun intended -- a horse of an entirely different color than differentiating between a "hate crime" and non-"hate crime".

We punish homicide if you planned to do it ("first degree"), if you didn't plan to do it ("second degree") and even if you failed to adequately plan your actions to prevent it ("negligent homicide"). But please note that this is all about planning your actions.

The Anglo-American political tradition, especially as codified in the U.S. Constitution, strives to protect individual freedom of belief. This tradition, one might say, strives to officially ignore what one believes, and to pay attention to one's actions only.

This is not merely a high-minded libertarianism of spirit; it's also a quite pragmatic formula first worked out in Europe after years suffering the disastrous consequences of attempting to enforce individual moral belief. With the rise of Protestantism, Europe was convulsed by decades of warfare putatively over and greatly fueled by sectarian difference. The wars ended with millions dead -- and with treaties guaranteeing freedom of religion. The State agreed, more (Holland) or less (English "test" laws), not to examine individuals' beliefs lest it lead once again to civil war.

The situation was as precarious, or more, in the nascent United States: while the northern British American colonies had been settled by persecuted religious minorities (Massachusetts Bay by Puritans, Pennsylvania (led) by Quakers and later joined by a whole host of Protestant splinter sects, Maryland by Catholics), these minorities held radically different religious views and some were more than willing to become persecutors themselves (thus the founding of Rhode Island, for example). To create a common civil union - the United States -- in North America required freedom of conscience, again not merely because it is right but also because nothing else would work in that pluralistic amalgamation of colonies and sects.

What has this to do with laws against hate crimes? Our legal tradition, learned with hard experience, is to punish injurious actions but not to police or punish belief. Hate crime laws deviate from this legal tradition by more forcibly punishing actions that are accompanied by beliefs or ideologies.

While racial bigotry has become perhaps the most ill-regarded civil sin in the United States, I don't think any mainstream legal theorist has or would explicitly propose outlawing bigoted beliefs unaccompanied by actions.

Except -- what, then, does the "hate crime" law punish? The action? No, that's already illegal.

Is it punishing the action, when performed by a bigot? But isn't that just saying that we have different laws for different classes of people: one law for "right-thinking" people and another for "bigots"? And since the difference between a bigot and a non-bigot is just that one does, and the other does not, hold some bigoted belief, isn't that tantamount to punishing the bigot -- (or to be entirely technical, punishing the bigot more when we're otherwise punishing him for some action) - for having that belief?

Then if the "hate crime" law isn't punishing the action, and it isn't punishing the action when performed by a bigot, then it must be punishing - yes - the holding of the bigoted belief. And if we're punishing the holding of a belief, that's entirely distinct from any action. The action triggers the punishment, yes, but what's punished is not the action, but the "incorrect" believing. That's not really any different from outlawing the belief, and that's just saying that we punish "thought crime".

Outlawing belief or ideologies didn't work very well in 17th century Europe, it wouldn't have worked at the founding of the United States, and it hasn't much chance of working well now. Let's leave every man the freedom of his conscience, and punish his actions without trying to read or regulate his mind.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[zangdesign]

But with fraud, everyone suffers - victim, family, all those nice people surrounding them, etc.

Kill 'em all. Don't sort them out.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[slashclone]

So did Forrest Gump

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[markmoss]

I was about to write a post pointing out that the determination of motive that distinquishes between manslaughter, 2nd degree (unpremeditated murder), and 1st degree (premeditated) murder usually hinges on plain facts - e.g., did the killer bring the weapon along or pick up something that happened to be lying there. The determination of "hate crime" is often based on far more nebulous evidence. If the juries took "beyond a reasonable doubt" seriously, the only ones ever convicted of hate crimes would be those that confessed to them, but it's pretty easy to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that someone who waited in ambush with a gun really did intend to kill the victim...

But your point as to the difference between punishing actions and punishing thoughts is even better.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[markmoss]

Dane put fraud further down in Hell than murder, with betrayal at the very bottom.

Um. that's Dante that wrote "Inferno". And the value system in medieval Italy was quite a lot different than in most nations in the 21st century. (There is one group of Italians that holds to the old values - the Mafia.)

But there is a reasonable argument that some frauds are worse than murder. People spend large parts of their life to working. A middle-aged man's pension plan might be the product of several whole years of work, say 1/20th of his life. Is it really more serious take the whole life away from 3,000 people than to take 1/20th of their lives away from 1,000,000?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[kuma]

you and others here make me feel so fucking stupid...

i have this notion, its so silly, that if i hook up a gook, spook, kike fucker up to the redneck rig for a drag about the dusty backways, well, that i'm making a statement about members of the gskf group.

see their blood ain't as red or salty as yours. you must appreciate that, being so smart.

it kinda feels good making a statement like that, in parts left along the road. lots of folks think like me, too, and its a wonder we let those gskf pieces of shit vote and drive.

what i don't get is why the kikes and fags want those laws. shit, why do my patriot friends get hunted down when they shoot up nosy cops.

murder is murder, just like the bible says. don't matter if its a cop, atf goon or gook of the boat, they all die the same. and if they ain't saved, all burn the same, too.

~~~~

you assholes make me furious.

killing a person because of who they are is prelude to genocide. much like the killing of a cop, it is a crime against the social order. how is this not a treason?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[Col. Panic]

Hrm. I'm gonna have to disagree with this one. Fraud can and did cost many people their pensions, and that is painful. But I would rather lose all my money than be forced to jump from the 100th floor of a flaming building.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[orthogonal]

killing a person because of who they are is prelude to genocide. much like the killing of a cop, it is a crime against the social order. how is this not a treason?

I don't like to throw the term "genocide" around too lightly, but, ok, let's stipulate for the moment that hate crime is a "prelude to genocide".

Then I can equally well argue that any murder that isn't state sanctioned is a prelude to anarchy, because the murderer, by taking a power the State reserves exclusively to itself, is undermining or even beginning the overthrow of the State.

But all this "asshole" is saying -- I won't speak for anybody else you've been deliberative enough to call an asshole -- all I'm saying is that I'm all for punishing murder and other crimes. I'm all for punishing the guy who murders because of the victim's race, and I'm all for punishing the guy who murders to get at the victim's pocketbook, and I'm all for punishing the guy who kills out of rage or jealousy or sheer bloody-mindedness.

But if we establish hate crimes laws that exact different punishments, we are, explicitly or implicitly saying some thoughts are OK to believe, and some aren't. Here's what I mean: if killing somebody because they're black is a hate crime, but killing somebody because they're a Communist isn't, we are implicitly saying that being anti-communist is OK, but that being anti-black (racist) is wrong.

One world view -- "Communism is a threat to all we hold dear" -- is OK, in that we won't punish you any extra if you act on it by murdering a Communist.

Another world view -- "Racial equality and miscegenation are a threat to all we hold dear" -- isn't an belief OK'd by the State, and the State demonstrates it's not OK by punishing you extra if you act on it by murdering an African-American.

Now maybe you'll argue that it's more fundamental to be black that it is to be Communist. But some would argue that deeply held belief is more fundamental than accidents of birth. A Communist probably would, a born-again Christian certainly would.

So, on behalf of the State, what beliefs will you say are OK to have? And how is telling people what it's OK - or not OK -- to believe consistent with freedom?

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[jamie]

You and I disagree starting at the beginning:

But differentiating between first degree murder and a lesser homicide charges is -- pun intended -- a horse of an entirely different color than differentiating between a "hate crime" and non-"hate crime".

We punish homicide if you planned to do it ("first degree"), if you didn't plan to do it ("second degree") and even if you failed to adequately plan your actions to prevent it ("negligent homicide"). But please note that this is all about planning your *actions*.

"Planning your actions"? In other words, your non-actions: your thoughts. You've carefully chosen examples, but consider other examples too: judges will put people away for longer if they, for example, demonstrate extreme cruelty in the commission of a violent crime, whether planned or not. Or if they, in a wholly unrelated incident, tortured an animal, not (necessarily) because abusing the animal was a crime, but because the abuse is evidence of the type of mind which poses a greater danger to society.

More to the point: a criminal who confesses to great enjoyment of sadistic acts will be incarcerated longer than one who simply confesses to having performed them. That has nothing to do with planning actions, the judge is sentencing based on thoughts. "I believe that killing puppies is fun and everyone deserves to be beaten with lead pipes" is a belief that will get you more time in prison. So are certain beliefs about black people, women, Jews, or gays.

The only real important reason for locking people away is that while they're in prison they can do no harm to society by repeating their crimes. Prejudice that runs deep enough to influence behavior toward homicide is indicative of a criminal who is more likely to repeat his crime. I hope I don't have to explain this; it's simply true. Compared to his identical twin whose criminal act was not influenced by prejudice, our racially-motivated subject should be put away for longer, because he is a greater danger. This is really very simple.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds.

[prizog]

Oops, missed a character. Yes, I know it's Dante. I have a (slightly altered) diagram of the Inferno on my wall.

This is like

[Morgahastu]

saying lock pickers could get a life sentence, it makes no sense. Think of the crime, not of the skill.

No one expects the...

[Zarf]

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...

Re:No one expects the...

[TheConfusedOne]

URL #2: http://www.spanish.inquisition/

*CRASH*

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!! ...so on and so forth...

Re:No one expects the...

[joebp]

URL #2: http://www.spanish.inquisition/

I'm pretty sure you mean http://www.inquisition.es/

Re:No one expects the...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Bring out the COMFY AERON!

uh..

[gkuchta]

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.

Re:uh..

[swaic]

Wait till some geek gone mad puts one of these in a pillow case and attacks the agents who come to arrest him or even beats a politi^H^H^H^H^H^H to death and get life instead of getting life for hacking hotmail.

Sure a mouse can be dangerous...

[BeNJ-GoS]

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...

As dangerous as a bullet?

[httpamphibio.us]

I've never seen nor heard of a mouse, when used as mice are intended, killing anyone. Just a *little* too much hyperbole.

The movie wasn't *that* bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The movie wasn't *that* bad

[jimjamjoh]

You're in luck, kid. The guy upstairs seized Gene Roddenberry's heart 'bout 11 years back.

Yep, it's war on drugs part deux

[ch-chuck]

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...

Re:Yep, it's war on drugs part deux

[lateralus_1024]

Yep...and if you hurt someone with reckless use of the mouse, then the terrorists have already won. Gee I hope this War on Terrorism goes better than the War on Drugs. That was worse than 'Nam.

A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet

[zero-one]

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?

Re:A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet

[ReidMaynard]

I think it needs to be a frozen bio-mouse, hurled from a special Frozen Mouse Gun ...

Goodbye to spyware....

[boomer_rehfield]

" 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?

Re:Goodbye to spyware....

[george399]

As long as it gets rid of those damned X10 pop-up ads!

This is true

[Joz]

Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"

This is true (Disney)

What if...

[ZaneMcAuley]

The hacker is NOT in US borders yet a US server is the victim?

Re:What if...

[plumby]

They'll just bomb your country.

Re:What if...

[ZaneMcAuley]

Or another scenario: What if the hacker is not in US borders, the server is not in US borders, but routers used or proxies used in the act are?

Bombs are good?

[ffatTony]

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.

Re:Bombs are good?

[ch-chuck]

New slogan for today's politico: "The Keyboard is mightier than the H-Bomb!"

Re:Bombs are good?

[Mark Bainter]

More than that, where are the requirements to be 18 to purchase a mouse? (Maybe I shouldn't say that, I'm sure that'll be next. I mean, who'd have thought you wouldn't be able to buy fluids for your car if you were under 18.)

Re:Bombs are good?

[SuiteSisterMary]

A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bomb or bullet. But only in close quarters combat. Grasping the cord, whirl the mouse around your head, then strike your opponent in the face with it. While he is dazed, move behind him, and loop the cord around his neck, making sure that he does not interpose anything between the cord and his neck. Then, pull the cord tight, and wait.

Re:Bombs are good?

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Yeah, but let's see you get multiple people with it at once. You'd need a heck of a long mouse cord for that. And what about all the cordless mice? Are they exempt from the "Danger" status?

It is only a matter of time before they are declared a choking hazard to those "Under the age of 4, or really, really stupid people."

Re:Bombs are good?

[motardo]

(Maybe I shouldn't say that, I'm sure that'll be next. I mean, who'd have thought you wouldn't be able to buy fluids for your car if you were under 18.)

What kind of fluids? Like freon or something?

Re:Bombs are good?

[Matts]

Damn. I have a cordless mouse.

Re:Bombs are good?

[Mark Bainter]

What kind of fluids? Like freon or something?

Just about everything but oil. Octane booster, paint supplies/thinners/etc, engine degreaser, etc. The local autoparts stores here have a sign in the section indicating that you must be 18 to purchase the products. Ostensibly to prevent kids breathing it to get high.

Re:Bombs are good?

[motardo]

stupid kids, how stupid is it to get carded for trying to fix your car.

Re:Bombs are good?

[the bluebrain]

Damn. I have a cordless mouse.

a.k.a. "IOBM" - Intra-Office Ballistic Missile.
That's some dangerous shit you've got there.

I like this part..

[forsaken33]

In the MSNBC article, there is a quote "By rewriting wiretap laws, CSEA would allow limited surveillance without a court order when there is an "ongoing attack" on an Internet-connected computer or "an immediate threat to a national security interest." 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. ". So you have to figure, there's always an attack going on somewhere on an internet-connected computer. Heck, even wargaming would be covered. So i think the feds just got a freebie there, and im sure if your email or URLs indicate you like computers, and THEY are watching you...things could be doubleplusungood. Yes the 1984 word there IS intentional.

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.

Hooray

[Hee Hee Hee]

This bill does much more than give "life sentences to hackers." Among other things, it formalizes "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."

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.

woke up this morning

[morgajel]

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.)

Re:woke up this morning

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Please read the legislation. It simply allows sentences UP TO life in prison for causing or attempting to cause death. These exagerations are getting silly.

Re:woke up this morning

[karyokinesis]

First of all, you can only get life if you voluntarily cause (or attempt to cause) a death through your hacking. So 2600, honeypot systems, etc., wont be affected by this. But I wonder what would happen if 2600 distributed a program that could (and would) be used for the intentional death of a human; could they be held responsable for the actions of some script kiddie that downloaded the software and used it for murder?

"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."

Any democratic country would never be so stupid to make it illegal to criticize the government; they just make it morally wrong.

"(Please god don't make be become a fucking political activist.)"

What use would that do? Nowadays, most political activists are mocked (except when the vast majority has an interest in their sucess; when the people are starving, for example). Sure you can express your opinions against the government, as long as no one takes them too serious. And honestly, the vast majority of the population just dont have time (or the wits) for politics; thats why so much corruption can go unanswered. Anyways, you would be fighting a lost cause; remember the DMCA?

Dictatorship has new rules.

Define Terrorism

[Anarchofascist]

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.

Re:Define Terrorism

[evilviper]

A very good point... In the media lately, the accepted definition is attacking "innocent" civilians for political gain. Unfortunately, we have been doing that for hundreds of years.

Hell, would someone care to tell me what military target were were attacking in Hiroshima and Nagaski?

I really wish someone would come up with a decent definition of terorism. It's much more difficult to combat something if our 'leaders' can't even define it.

Re:Define Terrorism

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I really wish someone would come up with a decent definition of terorism. It's much more difficult to combat something if our 'leaders' can't even define it."

terrorism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Damn you're thick.

Re:Define Terrorism

[evilviper]

Damn you're thick.

No, you've completely missed the point. I want to hear a defintion that would somehow apply to the people that crashed a plane into the WTC, while not applying to Clinton (the U.S.A.) bombing Afganistan with cruise missles (pre-sept 11th, 2001).

The definition you quoted does not reflect the meanning of the word as it is used... Therefore, that is NOT a definition.

Re:Define Terrorism

[Anonvmous Coward]

Oh my.. I can't believe I'm seeing this. Trivializing Sept 11th to paint Bill Clinton as a terrorist is not cool, dude. I hope you grow a soul one day.

I will have nothing more to do with this thread. I can't believe some of the boundaries self-serving people will cross. Erg!

Re:Define Terrorism

[evilviper]

I'm not amused.

You want to say how terrible Sept11 was, and how very different what the US has done... Fine, but just saying so doesn't do it. Explain what's so different about it. That's the whole reason I'm asking for a simple definition of 'terrorism'.

Re:Define Terrorism

[Anonvmous Coward]

Sorry, I didn't read what you said. I want nothing to do with somebody who'll trivialize 9-11.

Re:Define Terrorism

[evilviper]

Like I said, I'm not amused.

If you hadn't read it, you wouldn't have replied. If you were ignoring me (rather than trying to provoke a response) you would not have posted a message at all.

So, Troll, or idiot? Take your pick.

Re:Define Terrorism

[Anonvmous Coward]

No, didn't read it. I didn't want to read your rationalization. I read this one because I was curious how well you'd take your idiocy being ignored. It really isn't hard to skip right to the reply without reading what you said. I didn't see it, I'm not going back to look. Don't care.

As for being a troll for an idiot... I may very well be an idiot, but you're the troll. "Bill Clinton did stuff as bad as 9-11." Yah whatever.

You have issues, man. I hope one day you find the happiness you desperately need.

WorldCom

[truesaer]

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

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.

Re:WorldCom

[AtariEric]

Microsoft, I'm sure, would be more than happy to take that load off their hands.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/columns/maney.htm

Don't understand...

[pubjames]

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?

Re:Don't understand...

[Unfallen]

There's also this bit in the CNET article:

By rewriting wiretap laws, CSEA would allow limited surveillance without a court order when there is an "ongoing attack" on an Internet-connected computer or "an immediate threat to a national security interest."

Forget the life sentence bit, does this mean that there are going to be yet further vaguities being introduced that allow anyone to seize your logs just because they don't like what you're thinking?

Re:Don't understand...

[wheany]

But those compootermachines confuse the normal folk. That's why they are especially bad.

Re:Don't understand...

[Zathrus]

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.

Re:Don't understand...

[ethereal]

The problem is that our legislators are happy to give away our freedom. You can bet that they don't intend any of these laws to actually apply to themselves; it would be an outrage!

Re:Don't understand...

[hottoh]

The best news I have is telling myself that I will not live forever. If I knew I would have to support incredibly stupid laws makers forever, I'd have to kill myself.

I have agreed with every negative comment to this news story.

Re:Don't understand...

[tongue]

The problem that this bill acknowledges is the disparity of jurisdiction that the states have. Contrary to what some other posts would tell you, murder is not against federal law, except under special circumstances (weapons of mass destruction, etc...). The Constitution does not give the federal government reign over any types of crime except for treason, and specifically reserves anything not given to the federal government to the states. However, the Constitution does give the federal government jurisdiction over interstate matters, which is the justification for this new bill: if a hacker intentionally causes the death of someone in another state, whose jurisdiction does the prosecution fall under? the state in which the victim died, or the state in which the hacker committed the crime? This bill gives that jurisdiction to the federal government, under the interstate regulation and full-faith-and-credit clauses.

most of the world regards the US as a single country; IMO, in the minds of the framers, it was more like a whole bunch of small countries who agree to work together, more akin to the EU's current organization. That's why there's a need for these seemingly redundant criminalizations.

Re:Don't understand...

[tlh1005]

Making sure the specifics of the law are down is exactly why they introduced this bill. While it is true malicious acts can be perpetrated in many ways using many different mediums, we are accustomed to certain ones (guns, knives, cars, etc.) and not a method such as hacking. You have to admit that "Killing someone with a banana" is more black and white than the use of a computer and hacking resulting in death.

The court system has to ammend laws as times change. Some of law is cut and dry but much of it is invloved with lawyers manipulating the PERCEPTION of what the law is. Laws don't change nearly as much as an individuals interprettation does. Good lawyers are great presenters and arguers. Theorhetically you could do the same things a lawyer does in your own defense (outside of a few deals, connections, and knowing who to deal with). Problem is most of us don't know all or much of the letter of the law, nor have the tools/time to research it as much.

You can pay the $90 speeding fine for doing 80 in a 65 having your insurance increase drastically, or you can pay a lawyer $275 and some how its now a non-moving violation or faulty equiptment, giving you no insurance increase.

Getting more specific on a newer topic such as fatal hacking is a good way to remove a few more loopholes to be found. Better done now rather than waiting for precedence.

Re:Don't understand...

[Creepy]

Sure the US has laws for murder, but most of the time the perp gets away with a reduced sentence. Hacking is certainly more serious than rape or murder because it takes away our precious CAPITAL. Our businesses suffer, and without them, we are no better than Columbia, so hackers need to be punished, preferably with whips and chains in a CIA torture chamber.

This way, those evil hackers can get a life sentence for hacking and a life sentence for murder and a life sentence for domestic terrorism and we citizens can pretty much lock them up and throw away the key (or send you to the chair if you're in one of THOSE states).

And if we're lucky, our beloved Enron executives will get less than 20 years (5 years with good behavior) for causing hundreds to thousands of people to live in poverty 'cause they lost everything while the executives left with millions. Executives are certainly much less malicious than hackers, don't you think?

Re:Don't understand...

[brad3378]

> 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"

If the bananna is mushy, you must aquit!

Re:Don't understand...

[geekoid]

good point about why we need a new law.

The wire tap isn't a wire tap in the sense that they are reading what you do, it only allws ip information, and email header information, not the "body" of the email.

I'm not saying its good or bad, just clarifing a point.

Re:Don't understand...

[phud]

Why is this law necessary?


Of course its necessary, otherwise how would we know our lawmakers are being productive. Heaven knows I would never vote for anyone who failed to at least try to put a new law or two on the books.


Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Re:Don't understand...

[willpost]

They're trying to overlap laws so that the few that escape one scenario get a life sentence and the others get two life sentences.

Re:Don't understand...

[nanoakron]

Because the truly important part of this bill is the fact that they're tacking on rights to wiretap without court order.

THAT's the true aim of this bill - the rest of it won't actually change a damned thing about murder law.

-Nano.

Laws?

[SashaM]

"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!

Re:Laws?

[SN74S181]

By prohibiting the use of closed source applications wherever security is of any importance!

Dude,

We've determined that you don't have a printed copy of the source code for your motherboard's BIOS printed out and beside you on the desk.

One of our agents will be by with a chip puller to remove the BIOS rom in a few minutes.

Try to cooperate with him and we'll go easy on you.

Except

[wiredog]

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.

Re:Except

[Mechanik]

In the case of a hacker, who may be operating across State lines, it is proper for the Federal Government to get involved.

Ok, so how is this any different than if you and I stand on opposite sides of the border of two states, and I shoot you in the head from across the line?

One would think that if they were going to make a law, that they would make it a little more generic... I fail to see why killing someone with a computer should have to be treated any differently that using any other tool, whether it be knife, gun, cow launched via catapult, etc.


Mechanik

Re:Except

[natefanaro]

For the same reason why there's no tax if someone ships you something you bought across state lines. It's just something that they do.

Re:Except

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

If you kill someone across state lines, you can be charged federally with murder or negligent homicide or whatever.

Re:Except

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Except

[scawa]

If, for instance, a hacker hacked into the FAA computer system an brought down Air Traffic Control systems, thereby causing death and destruction, IT WOULD be a Federal Matter.

Re:Except

[Lemmy Caution]

And this has happened *how many times?* In the real world, I mean - not in a Bruce Willis movie.

Re:Except

[MrResistor]

It's called "extradition". Perhaps you've heard of it? No Feds required.

I don't personally care who has jurasdiction, though. My problem is that they are somehow saying that Graffitists and Burglars deserve the same punishment as Murderers, and harsher punishment than Rapists, but only if their crime doesn't involve real, physical property. If they vandilize or steal something that actually exists in the physical world, well, 6 months in the county jail and 12 months probation is just fine.

It's the hypocracy that bothers me.

It's Interstate crime? So what. So is mail fraud. Do those people get life in federal prison? If not, how can anyone justify giving a hacker life in federal prison?

Re:Except

[kz45]

One would think that if they were going to make a law, that they would make it a little more generic... I fail to see why killing someone with a computer should have to be treated any differently that using any other tool, whether it be knife, gun, cow launched via catapult, etc.

for the same reason we have different laws for "hate" crimes.

Re:Except

[kz45]

I don't personally care who has jurasdiction, though. My problem is that they are somehow saying that Graffitists and Burglars deserve the same punishment as Murderers, and harsher punishment than Rapists, but only if their crime doesn't involve real, physical property. If they vandilize or steal something that actually exists in the physical world, well, 6 months in the county jail and 12 months probation is just fine.

YOU obviously didn't read the article. Hackers that knowingly (or accidentally) cause death by some means (taking over a flight controller as an example) get life in prison. Johnny script-kiddy that takes down a few websites does not.

Re:Except

[Izanagi]

Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

And in related new...

Mouse Cord Killer on the loose!
from the Thats-not-a-cordless-mou...OWACKKKKK

Re:Except

[MrResistor]

So, can you explain why this requires an adition to existing law?

Re:Except

[I Like Purple]

Atleast here in Michigan we are supose to pay sales tax even if we bought something from another state and had it mailed here. I don't know anyone that actually does it but I know you are supose to.

Re:Except

[Yottabyte84]

The keyboard is more dangerous, actualy. Except for with script kiddies, but they're mostly harmless.

Re:Except

[morleron]

That's because they couldn't hide their intentions behind a smokescreen of technical jargon. People understand the limits of use to which a rental truck can be put. They don't undestand the technology behind the computers they've come to rely on for many things in their lives. What they don't understand they fear. The situation is exacerbated by the anti-virus vendors constantly trumpeting how dangerous it use to use computers attached to the Internet.

I dare say that most people are convinced that "hackers" can wander at will over the mysterious byways of that thing called cyberspace. The government is doing a skillful job of playing on the combination of peoples' fear of the unknown (the Internet) and the known threat of terrorism. Right now the public will accept, without much thought for the future, anything that is sold to them as increasing their "safety." This is the situation that Ben Franklin warned about when he made his statement about those who give up a little freedom for a little safety soon find they have neither.

Just keep in mind that any government's first priority is to keep itself in power. In this conflict with terrorism the enemy is mainly invisible. That allows the government to define the threat from that enemy in any way they wish. Remember the "Clipper Chip" from the first years of the Clinton Administration? The same departments (FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD) that pushed for implementation of that piece of idiocy are back pushing even more restrictive measures now. They have the support of a frightened populace that doesn't understand the issues, but is willing to believe whatever "the experts" say about the threat and allow the passage of restrictive legislation such as this.

Somehow those of us who understand the technology and the threat that legislation like this poses must change the terms under which the legislative and propaganda battle is being fought. Perhaps some sort of public service ad campaign in which true hackers, in the original honorable meaning of the term, are shown as they really are? Maybe something like the ads the National Guard uses to show you that your next door neighbor may be a member of the Guard. We have got to take back our heritage from those in the media who use the disruptions of crackers to smear all those of us who love to play with technology just to see what it can do. Maybe the phrase "Hackers built the Internet" should be our rallying cry?

Just my $.02,
Ron

appropriate "department"

[Wansu]

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.

Exerpt from the bil

[Hellkitten]

(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

Re:Exerpt from the bil

[Hellkitten]

Remember these are politicians we're dealing with. They probably won't understand most of the bill because it deals with computers and technical stuff (If politicians had a clue they wouldn't say the mouse could be as dangerous as a gun, gut that a keyboard could).

Basicually no politician would like to be on the news as the guy that wotet agains the bill. "xxx today voted that hackers should not get life if someone got killed because of hacking" not good PR. And because everyone is in favor of this they also vote for the parts that they don't understand

mouse

[Jacek Poplawski]

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

Then buy a cat. And stop calling crackers hackers.

Re:mouse

[mpe]

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

Was he refering to Micky Mouse? Who certainly has proved to be a highly dangerous mouse.

Re:OMFG!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

What do these names have in common?

[bons]

Loyd Blankenship, Phil Zimmermann, Kevin Mitnick, Jon Johansen, Dmitry Sklyarov

Pray you never find out the hard way.

Re:What do these names have in common?

[Hektor_Troy]

Well, I don't know who Loyd Blakenship or Jon Johansen (I haven't checked those links yet), but I wouldn't put Kevin Mitnick in the same category as the two other people.

What Mr. Mitnick did was unquestionably wrong (ethically and morally)- wether or not it was against the law doesn't matter in that comparison - what he did was wrong; the other two on the other hand did nothing wrong.

mod Parent insitefull

[oliverthered]

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.

Are they out of their minds ?!

[Phantom_24]

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 !!!!

not so terrible?

[tps12]

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.

Re:not so terrible?

[evilquaker]

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.

No, you'll be treated with suspicion and fear, because you're "extremely dangerous" and most importantly, you're something they don't understand. How is Joe Noob supposed to figure out who's a "good hacker" and who's a "bad hacker"? That's right, he won't... he'll just treat all computer professionals with the same level of suspicion (or worse), because you never really know...

Don't push that button!

[Riskable]

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."

Re:Don't push that button!

[ch-chuck]

murder through a computer - new form of the 15 yo phear of a hacker launching WWIII by whistling into a payfone.Great hacker cracker revisited. Actually the guys at theregus.com have been making fun of various reports in, e.g., USA Today about hackers lauching viruses to open dam flood gates, breaking into power system to cut electricity, and other products of the overactive imagination of the illinformed.

However, in a climate where software is free of all legal liability for anything, and where 'Trusted Computing' is a vapid marketing phrase, it's no wonder they want to get legislation in place to get some teeth into enforcement, instead of all the usual spineless disclaimers of any responsibility for security.

Re:Don't push that button!

[OceanBarb]

Don't worry, be happy, secure in the knowledge that this only applies to attempted murder. ......until the next bill comes along, which makes your virtual life online equivalent to your wetware. Then, deliberate or accidental attempts to change or alter a person's personal information, wherever stored, are equivalent to attempts to rub out the bio version.

Wonder what they'd make of the Info Wars in Paul J. McAuley's Whole Wide World, wherein virii attack processor cooling fans and cause fires and explosions all over the City of London?

Re:Don't push that button!

[ThePyromaniak]

That sounds like a job for Clinton if you ask me.

level of sophistication

[plumby]

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.

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?

Re:level of sophistication

[Kevin Stevens]

What they are trying to do is seperate people who let some virus loose in the wild that gets out of control, as opposed to someone who coordinates a DDOS attack over a series of months. It is an analog to the difference between degrees of murder. A pissed off employee that blows machines up in anger will be treated differently than some guy spending months infecting or penetrating machines in order to launch some large scale attack. This could actually protect Script Kiddies (if you see that as a good thing) because they would have pretty much a zero on the level of sophistication scale.
-k

Re:level of sophistication

[plumby]

But surely that's intention, not sophistication. Hitting someone over the head with a big rock is a pretty unsophisticated murder, but is not treated any differently from using an almost untraceable poison if there was the same intention.

Re:level of sophistication

[warlockgs]

Well, the level of sophistication to me is a good argument.

Sort of like determining a level of skill in killers, where a first-time killer can get a lighter sentence, where a trained professional hitman would get a harsher sentence.

Makes sense to me...

Re:level of sophistication

[plumby]

Again, nothing to do with sophistication. That's repeat offending.

I just love this...

[Hitch]

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....

Of mice and bullets

[dkh2]

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

Funny, that's exactly what Dumbo said.

It's natural to fear the unknown..

[MongooseCN]

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.

Re:It's natural to fear the unknown..

[Deosyne]

Exactly. I'm beginning to think that the only reason that politicians, lawyers, and business executives wear those uncomfortable suits is to provide safeguards against their spontaneously flinging feces as one another.

Re:It's natural to fear the unknown..

[Reziac]

"Historically humans have always attacked and destroyed what they don't understand. That or they become religious and used religion to explain everything." You forgot "then in the name of religion, destroyed everything they don't understand."

Mice are weapons!

[hofer]

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!

Re:Mice are weapons!

[swaic]

Yeah whatever... So how come the US didn't do any carpet mouseballing in Afghanistan. Mouseballs are a hell of a lot cheaper than bombs and they're just as dangerous. :)

Re:Mice are weapons!

[hofer]

I thought cluster bombs did have yellow mouseballs and food packages inside.

Lets get this straight,

[4eek]

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.

"Surreptitious electronic surveillance"

[perp]

... existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads.

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.

Context people, context...

[Chocky2]

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.

Re:Context people, context...

[Anonymous Coward]

But we already have laws that cover murder. So enforce it. Why another law? It's just another encroachment. It creates precedent and shows the government wants to control your computer access. Subclassifying crimes by the way/reason they were done is stupid. So what if you kill someone with a baseball bat, a gun, or a computer? It's still murder.

The US only has 3 sane "representatives" ?

[Moderation abuser]

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.

And while we're at it...

[NateSac]

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-

Re:Time to move to Canada

[NorthDude]

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...

They will have to get jobs at the RIAA

[pben]

I guess that if they want to crak computers they will have to break into all the MP3 traders computers.

More dangerous then a bullet?

[famazza]

• '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!

Since I doubt you actually read the legislation...

[Scratch-O-Matic]

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.

Phreakers....

[phunhippy]

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!

Re:Phreakers....

[FunkSoulBrother]

i think he just likes the letters "Ph".

A true geek would know that the letter "F" is more efficient, saves memory, time, etc....

Mice considered dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mice considered dangerous

[Observer]

I wish you hadn't said that.

Now we'll probably get a bill making it illegal to 'knowingly or recklessly cause or attempt to cause death of passers-by through the defenestration of a Texan or Texans'.

sounds fair..

[NateSac]

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

Suitable punnishment for spamming?

[gafferted]

The spammers say: "Just hit delete"

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.

Slight correction

[LittleGuy]

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.

Re:Slight correction

[jazman_777]

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.

Slight correction: Peace:when the military-industrial complex is livin' large.

Those zany antics of Congress bring back the 60s

[MrNovember]

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 for having brains and independent thought...

[neurosys]

"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

Well Thank God

[gelfling]

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.

C'mon, people.

[Gannoc]

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Monday to create a new punishment of life imprisonment for malicious computer hackers

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.

Re:C'mon, people.

[Quila]

Currently, that would be a weak case of attempted murder.

And that's why I hate this law aside from anything that's in it -- it's a law! If someone hacks into a control tower and tries to crash a plane, charge him with 235 counts of attempted murder. Why this law?

But noooo, the congresscritters need to look like they're doing something other than ruining the country, so they come up with a useles, redundant law where the only change is that we lose more privacy and rights.

Re:C'mon, people.

[mysticgoat]

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.

I fully agree with this. And I also mostly agree with those that say much of this law is redundant. I'll explain:

Case law, that which is built on precedent, undoubtedly would get around to modifying all the existing laws that recent IT advances have impacted. But that process is slow, meandering, and patchwork. It is slow because given the choice between arguing a test case of some new notion of law or getting an easy conviction based on a more conservative approach, a prosecutor best serves the people by going with the easy approach. Courts do make the law-- but they work really hard at doing so as little as possible. Second point: the case law approach to this will meander-- there is no way of saying what sections of the law will be clarified first. That will be depend on what the criminals do. One implication of this is that relying on case law in this area will guarantee the creation of loopholes. Third point: this is also a patchwork approach since case law applies by jurisdiction. What becomes binding in New England may have no impact in the Pacific Northwest.

A result: it is impossible to develop any kind of reasoned security structures during the years of legal chaos as precedents are established and challenged.

Legislative law gets around all that. Even the most obvious redundancies in this bill have value, because the entirety goes into effect at once. Across all the Federal jurisdictions. And this will make it possible for agencies and programmers to legally develop the means to protect what needs to be protected, working from an established set of criteria about what is legal for them to do and what is out of bounds. Legislation like this is a necessary prerequisite to any kind of reasonable design of security systems.

Chances are that this will be a law of short term effect-- there may not be many prosecutions under it and in ten years it may have no particular value at all. But not all laws should be judged on their eternal value-- some, like this one, are uniquely suited to addressing a short term problem in an efficient way.

I think this bill is probably A Good Thing. I support it, though I recognize that in five years or so I might find myself fighting to repeal some part of it. But that is tomorrow's battle, and it may not even come about.

Re:mod Parent insitefull

[ThePilgrim]

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

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Scratch-O-Matic]

All of our laws are written like this. That's why we have juries, defense lawyers, and many layers of appellate courts.

Off the beaten path...

[RaEJaE]

...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." Woohoo!! No more X10 ads!! -raejae

Just the beginning // and that's not all bad

[fw3]

One thing I don't (and don't expect to see for awhile) is provisions for requiring computing systems to be 'secured'(sic). There's a fairly large tug-of-war on the 'Net these days between those who are responsible for maintaining production systems and people who run poorly secured systems which are routinely used for attack by the whoever chooses to use 'em.

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:
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 .. I pay for this service and I'm not responsible / can't afford to fix it ...
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.

Re:Just the beginning // and that's not all bad

[aminorex]

You are responsible for your systems. If you
get hacked it is because you failed to manage
them competently, for example, by installing
Windows XP, or neglecting to lock down ports.
To attempt to place blame on someone else is a
quixotically unsustainable practice.

The Internet is a vast array of hostile entities
of varying levels of sophistication. Get used to
it, because that is not going to change, only
intensify. You cannot in general determine who is
attacking you, because there are millions of
dumb proxies out there which can be used to
route attacks. The numbers of such entities
will only increase over time.

Moreover, this is a Good Thing. It's how
people living under crushing governmental
repression can share ideas, and plans for
throwing off their oppressors.

Isn't this really just an...

[3seas]

Admittance that the internet is not, and never will be secure?

Of course it is...

[stu_coates]

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

...if fired towards someone at several times the speed of sound. ;-)

Re:Of course it is...

[Paersona]

Ah, I knew those aerodynamic hockey puck Mac mice would come in handy for something someday...

Books are dangerous, too! Let's ban them...

[Quiet Hatred]

"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 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.

E-mail caching for 90 days!

[kstillson]

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.

Sad

[Rooktoven]

The most horrible aspect of this is American lawmakers rushing en masse to approve a bill that shows they have little or no understanding of the technology involved. Tell me why this has to be an anti-hacking bill. If you tap into the controls of a dam forinstance, and effect flooding that causes loss of life, you aren't a hacker, you are a murderer.

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.

Keep Quiet

[NoInfo]

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.

Now I'm confused

[(trb001)]

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

Re:Don't understand? It's simple...

[BlackMesaResearchFac]

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.

Read the bill before you post people

[jarek]

I had the same "knee jerk" reaction but...

"(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. /jarek

What does this mean for someone like E. Mason?

[cnelzie]

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.

Re:What does this mean for someone like E. Mason?

[cnelzie]

I never called any Cracker, Script-kiddie or other burglar a hero. I only asked what would happen to those children that break this law?

I keep my network secure. Sure, I have to keep up on it, but that is my job as IT Manager. I am quite certain that if someone made a concerted effort to get into our network, it would happen. However, it is my job to make it more difficult.

Granny can get as thick a steal door as she wants. If she doesn't lock it, then who is really to blame? Big corporate networks are often like that. Sometimes they have decent staff that are on top of security. Most of the time, they simply don't. I prefer to be on top of security concerns. So, I left Big Corporate America and now work in Small Corporate America. Sure, the funds aren't the same, sometimes the challenges can be greater. All in all, it is much more rewarding.

Maybe if we made every crime punishable by life in prison, life would be much easier for us law abiding folk. I mean, those speeding motorists are a risk to the safety of other people. They should be treated exaclty like the terrorists that they are. One false move and they could wipe out the entire economy!

Just because a law like this is created, doesn't mean that there will be an end to that kind of behavior. All it means is that we will have even more people in prison and that the age of those prisoners will be much younger than ever before. What would you think if you little brother, sister, cousin, nephew or child was arrested under this law and put away for life? What if it happened to you because all the evidence pointed at your terminal?

Either way it is looked at, it simply sucks. It sucks for the company/person/government that get's hacked. It sucks for the middle school student that ends up getting life in prison. In the end, the terrorists have won as we are now attacking ourselves more than we are attacking them.

This law STOPS at the US border. The internet stops at the edge of our planets satellite network. Which travels farther? So, who will this affect the most? Foreign terrorists or American Citizens?

-.-

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Oniros]

(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.

Some clarifications of meaning...

[tlambert]

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

Re:Some clarifications of meaning...

[symbolic]

Regardless of the source of this sudden and ongoing interest in dismantling the rights of citizens, the only image I can conjure up when thinking about these legislative attacks on American freedom (legislative terrorism?) is that of a bunch of monkeys playing in a sandbox. I think the government will take every opportunity to play with this and push it to its absolute limit. I would not be surprised history repeats itself and we end up seeing the same kinds abuses what were common during the Eisenhower presidency.

Federal makes sense!

[alexhmit01]

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

No search warrants for wiretaps?

[Fixer]

Seems to violate the idea of "no unreasonable search or seizure". So any old cop who doesn't like me can just get a wiretap on my phone and see what's up?

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.

The Silver Lining

[snoopy75]

From the CNET article:

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? :-)

Legal hacking...

[McCart42]

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.

Very simple solution

[KlausBreuer]

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

Re:Very simple solution

[timerider]

you're here now?
get out. fast. as long as it's still possible.
german politicians are up the same tree.

Re:Very simple solution

[SN74S181]

I haven't been breaking into other people's computers lately, so I'm not sure I need to run screaming away from the US.

Please, by all means: if based on your behavior you feel this law threatens your future freedom, feel welcomed to leave.

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Xenopax]

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.

but how's that different...

[Ender Ryan]

But how's that different than a terrorist or anyone else operating across state/country lines who is guilty of murdering U.S. citizens?

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.

Re:but how's that different...

[two-bookoo!]

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...

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.

Re:but how's that different...

[mrpuffypants]

put any American in the shoes of a polit. and you will come up with the same type of person.

"ooh, i can do anything and basically get protected because i am in the House? Come over here and sit on my lap then, intern!"

people just abuse power, it's a fact of life

Re:but how's that different...

[nexex]

its so they can brag to joe stupid back home. its an election year, what do you expect? ;) plus if their opponent votes against it, "Well he voted to let hackers run free!" is what you will hear.

Re:but how's that different...

[nelsonal]

Actually legal interpretations of the law and incedentally contracts are generally quite specific. The reason for the large number of laws is that while current law may prohibit actions taken against ATC or similar, in person, they don't prohibit electronic forms of stopping ATC. So someone arrested for crashing a plane, by spoofing a pilot's instruments, might not be found guilty. Also, pols think that passing a law that no one reads, understands, enforces, or knows about will change behavior significantly. I had a pretty good laugh when a pol I know thought that the new bill passes regarding accounting oversight would change corporate behavior more than the market already has. Not that its perfect yet, but almost all of the legalities in the law have already been adopted by most public companies that want a stock price above 0.

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[PhxBlue]

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?

Computer != bullet

[agusus]

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.

Enron and WorldCom

[Zelet]

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!

Re:OMFG!!

[MeNeXT]

I don't see myself crashing into someone and killing them with my computer....then again I don't drive windows.

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Mark Bainter]

(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

Good thing we didn't have this law in place when Robert Morris had his accident.

Wheres my Railgun!

[wyluli]

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...

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Scratch-O-Matic]

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.

Don't need it repealed. YET.

[Confessed Geek]

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.

Re:Don't need it repealed. YET.

[Coz]

Finally - someone who actually READ some (or all)of it!

Talk about knee-jerk reactions - they want the sentencing bureau to review sentencing guidelines! What a horrible danger to our civil liberties! I know if I found out my wife/child/significant other's plane had crashed because some yahoo hacked into ATC or killed the power at the field as they were on approach, I'd want 'em facing life.

IF you read the bill, you see that there is language in there for intent, and premeditation, and malice... I'm far more concerned about the "quick'n'easy" wiretap and trace authority, although something like it's been needed since Stoll was working with his Cuckoo's Egg.

I figured this would be a hot-button topic on /. - I hoped there would be actual thought involved before most people pushed those buttons.

nonsense

[dnoyeb]

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?

Re:nonsense

[markmoss]

How does one kill someone across state lines?
1)Stand near the state line and fire a gun at someone on the other side.

2) Get a job at the Tylenol factory and add a little cyanide to the pills. Ship them out to stores all across the nation.

3) Hack into the records in a hospital in another state. Find someone with severe penicillin allergy. Erase that info, and put in a prescription for penicillin.

The question is, if existing laws cover the first two murders, and I'm sure they do, why is a special law required for the last third one?

Of course, there are also interstate (and international) murders for which you'll never see the man responsible going to prison:

4) You are a CEO of a corporation headquartered in one of these urbanized states with all sorts of regulations. So you have the factory (but not the HQ) moved to the most backwards and rural state you can find. And you order the manager to cut corners on safety...

Disappointed

[Mika_Lindman]

What, not even one funny [i]in other news[/i] post yet? I'll never read Slashdot again!

You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[FallLine]

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.

Re:You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[Dalcius]

I'll bite simply because I'd feel ashamed if I didn't say something...

This means that, yes, sometimes people do need to be held without a public trial.

Everyone looks back on McCarthy as a retard, with hindsight, but now we are allowing the government the same, if not more, power.

The day the government has the ability to arrest anyone and hide them away and do what they will to them without public knowledge is the day we become like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. That day has come.

From what I understand, people are being arrested and held for extended periods of time without being charged with anything. Trials and prisoner treatment are not observable by the public, in at least some cases.

Freedom is based upon certain rights, one of which is Due Process (TM). These rights, in the US, are unalienable. Nobody can take them away, under the constitution. To take away due process is in direct violation of the constitution, and why there isn't a shitstorm over this I have no clue.

The bottom line is that it violates the constitution. The bottom line is that while they might not do anything wrong with it (honestly, do you believe this?), giving them this power allows them to do what they want -- and it is hard to take given powers away (Read history). And if any involved government official becomes corrupt, this power *will* be abused.

As a side note, another popular idea that some think this country was founded on is that of open government -- the idea that citizens should be able to monitor the vast majority of government activities.

My sig does not apply to this post.

Re:You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[jazman_777]

The day the government has the ability to arrest anyone and hide them away and do what they will to them without public knowledge is the day we become like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. That day has come.

From what I understand, people are being arrested and held for extended periods of time without being charged with anything. Trials and prisoner treatment are not observable by the public, in at least some cases.

Or like "The Northern States During the War of Northern Agression".

Our Great Ultimate God Leader "Honest" Abe Lincoln did this with impunity. He was our greatest violator and destroyer of the constitution (or maybe Franklinstein Roosevelt was). You go visit the Lincoln Memorial, and it's really a temple to a God.

Re:You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[ibis]

Bush's opinion polls are still as high as they were during height of the "War on Terror."

Umm, this is actually not true. Zogby poll shows his rating down from 75% in March to 62% now (July). Rate of descent appears to be increasing significantly as well.

Re:You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[Grunschev]

We're not merely trying to secure justice, what we're really fighting is the future massive terrorist attacks.

You need more qualifiers on this. We're not concerned with all terrorist attacks, just those perpetrated against us. If we really believed "if you support terrorists, you are a terrorist" we'd be bombing New York ourselves. Unless, of course, you feel the Irish Republican Army aren't a bunch of terrorists or that they don't get some of their support (money) from New York.

Bush's policies are, for the most part, ineffectual and nonsensical and amount mainly to providing illusions to the US population and shifting power around in Washington.

Just ask yourself a couple questions: Do you really think security measures enacted in the last 10 months would have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Do you really think establishing a cabinet position for Homeland Security will make the various Federal law enforcement agencies work together better? (Note: they worked very closely together for the Atlanta Olympics.)

Igor

Re:You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[FallLine]

Everyone looks back on McCarthy as a retard, with hindsight, but now we are allowing the government the same, if not more, power.

A) Not everyone looks at McCarthy as a "retard" with hindsight and it wasn't by any means all in hindsight. Certainly most people today recognize that he was a dangerous zealot and that he destroyed a lot of innocent people. On the other hand, most educated people also recognize that there really were KGB agents that were at work trying to undermine this country; that is to say that they take history as an inevitable thing, playing monday morning quarterback, and like to ignore that certain things were and were not known then and that some things were done to have averted events that could have very well changed history. He was seen by most of his contemporary peers as being out of control at the time. What's changed, by and large, is that people of today take the KGB threat as a total joke when it couldn't be reasonably so easily dismissed then. That's not to totally excuse him by any means, but just to point out that it's not nearly as black and white as you point out.

B) Bush is NOT taking citizens on the grounds of unamerican activities or what have you. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. We're talking about a handful of non-US citizens that are believed to be associated with terrorists (murderers, not mere philosophical disagreements). This is not "anyone." This is not on "any grounds." You are distorting the facts.

C) Open government and "due process" is a good thing. However, not all good things are better when carried out to their extreme. In fact, some are downright harmful. Some of the practices that made sense 200 years ago, when it was very difficult for an individual to kill thousands of people, really make little sense now when it's relatively easy to do the same. I'm sorry, but I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of releasing someone who sneaks into this country illegally, who is KNOWN to be involved with terrorists organizations, either back into this country on bail or to deport them, merely because we can't find sufficient evidence to convict them in a traditional court of the more serious crime that they're probably involved in. Now that's not to say that I give my government carte blanche (and they DON'T have it) to do whatever they want with these people, but you'd attack ANY necessary change.

D) As for history, this cuts both ways. History has shown time and time again that you can't placate bullies, whether they be dictators in charge of a country or a terrorist leader. Some of the same policies that Bush has enacted are policies that should have been enacted in WWII and are being attacked by people like you.

E) It's a blatant stretch to assert that Bush, or anyone in this government, is so far gone in their change of policy that they're beyond control of the people. What's more, these policies that have been enacted are relatively slight policies and are easy to enact, so that enacting them really gets you no nearer to a police state, in reality, than we were previously. The press is still readily attacking Bush. The political opposition still does, although they're more hesitant because they're afraid to waste political capital. I really don't think that you can say with a straight face that we're in any danger of slipping into a police state given all the facts (especially when you take into account the greater risk of a massive terrorist attack).

Re:You slashdotters are so disconnected...

[Dalcius]

That's not to totally excuse him by any means, but just to point out that it's not nearly as black and white as you point out.

You are correct, I wasn't meaning to make it sound so black and white -- I am familiar with history and I do know why some of the things he did were helpful. I was just bringing that up in a general way, sorry for not being more specific.

Bush is NOT taking citizens on the grounds of unamerican activities or what have you.

That's not what I said -- I said (read the bottom of my post) that it is possible for this to happen, if a gov't official becomes corrupt. That ability is not a mole hill.

We're talking about a handful of non-US citizens that are believed to be associated with terrorists ... This is not "anyone." This is not on "any grounds." You are distorting the facts.

I'll give you that -- only multi-nationals are being arrested, at least in the US. But while "any grounds", truthfully, is not completely correct, they may arrest anyone suspected of being related to terrorism. They try them under non-public military courts.

I'm sorry, but I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of releasing someone who sneaks into this country illegally, who is KNOWN to be involved with terrorists organizations, either back into this country on bail or to deport them

People who are KNOWN to be involved should be arrested immediately -- and they are. But this "Patriot Act" goes a bit farther than that. It uses the word 'suspected', which is a very general word with no specific degree. ...merely because we can't find sufficient evidence to convict them in a traditional court of the more serious crime that they're probably involved in.

We can't go around arresting people, even foreigners (although we know foreigners have no rights, they're not Americans!). If you have not enough evidence, you have no grounds to arrest. Depriving someone of due process because you have a hunch is wrong, regardless of what 'clues' you have to terrorist activities.

If a woman dies, her husband is a suspect. But the police don't (or at least shouldn't) arrest him until they have *evidence* linking him to the crime. They then hold him while they gather *more* evidence to *prove* he did it. While I will digress that many of these arrests of suspected terrorists are handled in the same manner, I'm also confident that many are based on much less of a foundation.

When you have solid evidence, arresting someone is expected. But you can fit the bill of being 'suspected of being related to terrorsts' without hardly any hard evidence. And after the 9/11, people are crying "Witch hunt!" I know some of them personally.

D) As for history, this cuts both ways. History has shown time and time again that you can't placate bullies, whether they be dictators in charge of a country or a terrorist leader. Some of the same policies that Bush has enacted are policies that should have been enacted in WWII and are being attacked by people like you.

At the risk of sounding like I'm throwing rocks at glass houses, if you want to dissect my argument, give me some examples.

E) It's a blatant stretch to assert that Bush, or anyone in this government, is so far gone in their change of policy that they're beyond control of the people.

It will be very difficult to turn a democracy into a police state, or anything similar. But the problem is, when there is so much secrecy surrounding the issue, and when this is done only to a minority, it is difficult for the public to pin down. That is what I am afraid of -- a small minority having their rights violated. That is happening now (Read: Due process), and has the potential to get worse. Once the government is given a power, it will be difficult to take that power away. This issue will last a long time, but it cannot last forever in the degree it is perceived to be now.

It will be nice when nerds learn to read...

[night_flyer]

(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....

Re:It will be nice when nerds learn to read...

[mickeyreznor]

right ... just like how RICO laws were only supposed to be used for "evil" mob bosses, and asset forfeiture was only to be used against the "evil" drug dealers, and the patriot act applies only to the "evil" terrorists.

How is a mouse "as dangerous as a bullet or bomb"

[ShooterNeo]

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.

Redundant and Unconstitutional

[dh003i]

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.

Re:Redundant and Unconstitutional

[vinnythenose]

Precisely what I was thinking!! Good thing someone else wrote it otherwise I'd have to write more than this.

Re:Redundant and Unconstitutional

[Nukenbar2]

Yes, but what is breaking and entering in the computer age. If I remove the text at the end of a url, is that breaking into a server. What about a port scan? Common legal definitions for current crimes may not be explicit enough for the computer age.

Re:Redundant and Unconstitutional

[symbolic]

You're forgetting intent, which is a significant part of how many laws are applied.

Re:Redundant and Unconstitutional

[dh003i]

Perhaps legal clarifications about what is and is not, for example, "breaking and entering" are necessary; obviously, removing the end of a url or a port scan doesn't constitute that online.

To determine how I know these are obviously not breaking and entering, you have to go back to what makes breaking an entering wrong: because it violates a person's right to propertty and privacy.

In the case of deleting the last part of a url, that's not breaking/entering, because in offering a website to the public w/o access restrictions, its like having a garage sale. You can't have a garage sale and then sue someone for tresspassing when they come to inquire whats for sale. In other words, simply putting a site on the net without any restrictions implies that you want people to view it.

Re:Redundant and Unconstitutional

[NetBoy]

First, survelliance without a court order is unconstitutional. This portion of the bill will surely be stricken down by the Supreme Court.

Yeah, so is being held without charges. What
have you been smoking?

Maybe I should do my civic duty and run for
congress on a write in, "The Sanity Party".
Even 5% of the vote would restore some of my
faith in humanity.

We elected these DOLTS
and it's OUR FAULT. I guess that's
blaming the victim. Bad me.

netboy

Re:Redundant and Unconstitutional

[TheCrackRat]

First, survelliance without a court order is unconstitutional. This portion of the bill will surely be stricken down by the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, a hacker/cracker has to be arrested, tried, and convicted, and then appeal the case all the way to the supreme court. This is a long, expensive process. Even then, the Supreme Court has to accept the case which requires at least 4 of the justices to accept the case. Then, and only then, will there be the option of declaring it unconstitutional.

I do, however agree with the rest of your post.

Hate Crime, Thought Crime

[Myco]

As in most matters of law, there is no black-and-white easy solution when it comes to discussing the contents of a criminal's motivations for his special crime. The most common complaint against hate crime legislation is that it amounts to "thought crime," making it illegal to think in a certain way. This is a slippery slope that many are justifiably afraid to tread.

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.

Re:Hate Crime, Thought Crime

[jamie]

"But only in extremely specialized circumstances will it be absolutely demonstrable that the crime itself was a direct result of that hate."

I've seen no evidence that that is true. Yes, you can make up hypotheticals where a court will draw the wrong conclusion, such as your "racist kills a black man but not because he's black" example.

But you can invent hypotheticals for the other examples I listed too. A man's wife does him wrong; he is filled with rage and writes in his journal "I wish she were dead," and then an hour later his gun goes off and kills her in what is honestly an accident. He should probably get manslaughter but will instead get first degree murder. A tough break but that's the way it goes sometimes. Occasional hypothetical imperfections in the administration of justice are not reason to change the law.

The court can find a motivation of bigoted hatred with as much ease or difficulty as it finds a motivation of revenge, or financial gain, or the ordinary non-bigoted kind of hatred. Don't ask me to believe that a court cannot determine to its satisfaction what was in a criminal's head, because almost every criminal court does this several times a day.

It sounds like we're in agreement on mandatory sentencing (and hey look, we're heading back towards on-topic :). Unfortunately, political posturing, most notably the GOP's noticing (in 1968, then again in the 1980s) that it could bash the Dems for being weak on crime, has tied judges' hands in the name of being "tough on crime."

Mod up even more.

[io333]

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.

Points of view...

[pubjames]

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.

Exceptions ...

[Hektor_Troy]

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.

But - if a DEA SWAT team comes exploding through my door, carrying weapons and not wearing anything to indicate, that they're the law, shooting them in self defence (if, say, they got the wrong address) because you thought they were mobsters or something, that will not get you off.

But hey - they NEVER blow up the doors of the wrong people, and they've never shot innocent people at all. Nope ... no sire ... not here ... never.

But that's an entirely different discussion.

Waiting period on mice?

[Quila]

'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?

Re:Waiting period on mice?

[Peyna]

Yes, what hacker uses a mouse anyway? I'm sure they all use The Happy Hacking Keyboard.

Re:Waiting period on mice?

[Accelerated Joe]

I guess we'll all have to start using trackballs.

Re:Waiting period on mice?

[ijablokov]

Why not, they already come with a laser sight ;-)

http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouse/wie_info .a sp

You must be joking..

[Mulletproof]

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.

what if abortion becomes illegal in the future?

[incunabulum]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

shocking

[brsmith4]

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.

Time to Rape, Pillage, and Plunder

[4/3PI*R^3]

...at least I'll get out of jail in 5-10 years.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:All your freedoms are belong to us...

[innerlimit]

well glad i don't live in the us, canada (100% affiliate) or england for that matter, blair will probably be following the states (and bush) and ask for similar legislation in the UK...

thank god for belgium...

[OT] That signature again ...

[Hektor_Troy]

It is becomming more and more correct every day, and it's scary as hell!

How about life sentances for...

[warpSpeed]

How about life sentances for Corrupt CEOs, CFOs, and accountants?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[coupland]

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.

Money or Murder

[jav1231]

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. >

Re:Money or Murder

[TheCrackRat]

If hacking results in death, perhaps I can understand

This bill only allows life sentences for crimes that result in deaths. It does not lay down a blanket sentence for all hacking.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mice are benign

[j-turkey]

A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.

Maybe if its a highly explosive mouse...or a mouse hurtling at supersonic speed toward its target -- then sure, it can be just as dangerous as a bullet of a bomb...but probably not otherwise.

I don't understand your argument

[Hektor_Troy]

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?

L0pht's testimony? Backscratching at its finest.

[dave-fu]

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.

Ok then... how about this?

[eyegor]

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.

Good...

[db]

Now if we can only get spammers classified as "hackers". =)

Bill does not give script kiddies death

[dh003i]

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.

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[glsunder]

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....

[minghe]

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

Uh, isnt most hacking done on keyboards?

Title 18

[Peyna]

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.

Re:Title 18

[Peyna]

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1030

For some reason the link isn't working, stupid slashdot. You can just copy and paste (and remove the space inserted by slashcode) I guess: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=usco de18&STEMMER=en&WORDS=1030+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL =/uscode/18/1030.html#muscat_highlighter_first_mat ch

Re:Title 18

[Peyna]

Does slashcode automatically remove an A tag if it is over a certain length? I notice that it doesn't even show up in the source at all anywhere. Argggggg

Rapists don't get that much time

[mcwop]

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.

People, PEOPLE!

[billcopc]

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.

Oh THIS is going to be abused ...

[crovira]

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!

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet...

[pizza_milkshake]

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

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....

hackers?

[anthony_dipierro]

"House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers"

Is slashdot using that terminology too now? I guess it's now OK.

Can anyone say 1984?

[Nobody's Hero]

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

Hacker vs. Cracker

[den_erpel]

*sigh*
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 /. public would want to these things correct.
The management thanks you

Can't complain

[Krieger]

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.

I guess you can't say no to CC's.

[samoht]

n/t

And the Talibanisation of the US continues...

[Snaller]

..and you thought it was scary that mullah bush always knows the one truth (because GOD has told him so).

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

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Havokmon]

• 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.

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.

In the right direction, but far from perfect

[Mulletproof]

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...

Re:In the right direction, but far from perfect

[Hoi Polloi]

Sure it is a crime but who the hell sends someone to prison for the rest of their life for burglery or burning something? This is property, not rape or murder. People have lost their perspective, I feel like I'm revisting the Puritan era.

ping me

[nobody/incognito]

send a ping, go to jail.

nobody

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[Just Another Perl Ha]

The judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense lawyer all play into the conviction/acquital and length of sentence, based on the circumstances.

And herein lies the problem. With your soda can example, any Joe-Bubba off the street could understand the circumstances surrounding the event. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that anyone facing persecution under this (future) law will face a judge, jurry and/or prosecutor that has any inkling of understanding WRT the matters at hand.

That's the really scary part.

Re:I fucking hate this country

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have broadband?

I work in the Senate concerning tech policy ...

[Alex711]

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.

better than GNU Puclear

[DrSkwid]

get the mop & sawdust out

Is this the wrong way round ?

[Zemran]

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.

Anybody read the text?

[be-fan]

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.

Re:Anybody read the text?

[Vortran]

yes. and I agree with you. 20 years if for "knowingly... bodily harm or serious bodily injury" and life is for "knowingly... cause death". Not to mention that it would require a jury trial.

It does give the maniacs too much power to create criminals out of people they don't like.

Wish I could have mod'ed you up. I always seem to get moderator points when I don't need them and never have them when I do. heh

Vortran out

If I had more wit...

[dman123]

... I could make up a joke about Apple being less of a terrorist company by supplying mice that are only single-barrel rather than the double- or triple-barrel variety, or even the machine guns that a lot of us favor.

... I could, but I'm a bit off today. Make up your own joke.

Thinly veiled recruitment

[spongebob]

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".

It's our own fault

[Col. Panic]

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.

Confession

[casings]

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.

X-10

[ManicGiraffe]

"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."

Does this mean those damn X-10 camera ads (which everyone knows people only buy stick in the girls locker room - surrpetitious surveilance. ;) ) popping under my browser will now be illegal? We might get SOME good out of this thing....

Well if they can now tap the network

[kevdaman]

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

Palladium

[michmill]

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?

Obligatory Star Wars quote

[MrResistor]

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.

Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote

[Woko]

Fear will keep the state governers in line. Fear of Federal laws and Federal forces.

Legal terms

[Tenebrious1]

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.

interesting.

[towaz]

A prison full of 13 year olds....nice one america

The Hacker Manifesto

[chuckw]

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.

"Liberal" != unreasonable

[The Rizz]

when the first gun was made, they didn't need to make a new law for that
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).
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 ... 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).

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

Re:"Liberal" != unreasonable

[kin_korn_karn]

also beleive that some guns, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, should not be in the hands of the general public ... 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).

Such weapons are called Class III weapons and a member of the public CAN get them legally by paying a $200 tax surcharge on the firearm.

That seems low today, but the law was enacted during prohibition to stop Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. from using heavy military weapons against cops. $200 was a major tax in 1930s dollars.

Also anyone with a FFL (Federal Firearm License - i.e. a licensed gun dealer) can own and traffic in Class III weapons as long as the paperwork is done right.

Re:"Liberal" != unreasonable

[MAXOMENOS]

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.

The NRA actually disagrees with you here; it is their opinion that a crime committed with a gun should carry a stiff additional penalty.

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).

I pretty much agree with this sentiment, as long as (1) the barrier to obtaining such a license isn't set too high and (2) such a license also functions as a concealed carry permit and has nationwide reciprocity (just like a driver's license).

I also beleive that guns should be registered for the purposes of tracking ownership (in the same way you have to register a car).

This creates a problem. The old saw that registration leads to confiscation is an old saw for a reason: it's happened too many times before in the real world. And registration does zip, zero, nothing, to prevent firearms from being stolen and winding up in the hands of a gangbanger or convicted felon; all it does is create fertile grounds for another lawsuit.

I also beleive that some guns, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, should not be in the hands of the general public ... 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).

You'll be glad to know that this restriction is in place and is vigorously enforced. One needs a Class III permit to legally own an automatic weapon or a destructive device; these permits are a real bitch to get your hands on, as they require an extensive background check, approval from local law enforcement, and $200 for the tax stamp. This allows you to own a $5000+ fully automatic weapon -- as much good as the damn thing will do you. Unless it's an M-60 or something more substantial, it's a waste of time; and, arguably, it's a waste of ammo anyway. If the BATF even thinks you own an automatic weapon or a similar Class III device without the proper stamp, they go in with guns blazing, often with disasterous results (Waco, Ruby Ridge).

I respectfully submit that your analogy to a car is fundamentally flawed. It is a privalege to drive an automobile. It is a right to keep and bear arms, even if the government has a legitimate interest in regulating that right. This is something I wish more liberal Democrats (esp. Jan Schakowski, because I like her) would grasp.

Re:"Liberal" != unreasonable

[The Rizz]

Such weapons are called Class III weapons and a member of the public CAN get them legally by paying a $200 tax surcharge on the firearm.
[...]
Also anyone with a FFL (Federal Firearm License - i.e. a licensed gun dealer) can own and traffic in Class III weapons as long as the paperwork is done right.

Well, I'd probably say that a simple "Class III Weapons License" (with a required safety course) would be better than an extra per-purchase tax, but that's more or less what I meant - even weapons that no average citizen would ever have a serious use for can be owned. I think that this sort of thing is just fine, so long as it is determined in a way that allows any reasonably stable person to own what they want to.

--The Rizz

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it." --Ronald Reagan

Re:"Liberal" != unreasonable

[operagost]

You're the kind of liberal I like.

Joking aside, what you've outlined is more center than left nowadays, although It would have been considered liberal decades ago.

Re:"Liberal" != unreasonable

[The Rizz]

[Re: License to own guns]
I pretty much agree with this sentiment, as long as (1) the barrier to obtaining such a license isn't set too high and (2) such a license also functions as a concealed carry permit and has nationwide reciprocity (just like a driver's license).

Well, here I'd say (1) agreed, and (2) I'll definitely agree on the reciprocity. As for the concealed carry, I think that's an issue that needs more looking into - there are pros and cons to the "universal conceal & carry" laws, and I've never seen anything to convince me conclusively one way or another.

[Re: Registering guns for tracking]
This creates a problem. The old saw that registration leads to confiscation is an old saw for a reason: it's happened too many times before in the real world.

So has racial cleansing and a fascist police state. We just have to hope that it doesn't happen here.

Frankly, though, I see only two situations where a government with widespread gun ownership will try this: when it becomes (or is on the verge of becoming) a fascist state (at which point I, who have never even fired a gun, will borrow one from my neighbor and help with the open revolt), or when the country becomes so peaceful guns are not seen to ever be needed again (at which point it would be so peaceful you wouldn't NEED to try take them away).

And registration does zip, zero, nothing, to prevent firearms from being stolen and winding up in the hands of a gangbanger or convicted felon;

You are confusing the issue; that's not the point of registration. The point is that when a gun is used in a crime, the police have a starting point to use in tracking down who used the gun. In this way it is much the same as license plates: The license plate does not prevent a gangbanger or convicted felon from stealing the car - but when a car is seen leaving a crime, the license plate is used to help the police track down who did the crime by giving them a starting point for the investigation.

[Re: heavy weaponry]
You'll be glad to know that this restriction is in place and is vigorously enforced. One needs a Class III permit to legally own an automatic weapon or a destructive device; these permits are a real bitch to get your hands on, as they require an extensive background check, approval from local law enforcement, and $200 for the tax stamp

Strange that it would require local law enforcement's approval - if the Feds are willing to let you have it, I'd say that should be the main consideration.
As for making it difficult to get, a friend of mine once met a "gun enthusiast" who owned a surface-to-air missile. Frankly, I think I'll sleep a little better at night knowing this guy passed a "real bitch to get your hands on" level of check before being allowed to buy this sort of thing.
Now, I don't think a plain old automatic weapon, even an M-60 or similar, should really be lumped into the same category with that class of hardware - perhaps a "Class 2.5" or similar needs to be introduced, but that's not really what we're discussing here...

If the BATF even thinks you own an automatic weapon or a similar Class III device without the proper stamp, they go in with guns blazing, often with disasterous results (Waco, Ruby Ridge).

This, however, is a policy problem with the BATF and not a problem with the laws involved.

I respectfully submit that your analogy to a car is fundamentally flawed. It is a privalege to drive an automobile. It is a right to keep and bear arms,

Now you're getting into semantics. Just because one is defined in the Constitution, and the other in the larger body of law, should not be seen as giving one of them more value than the other. The constitution does not grant the right to get married, get an education, or even eat food, but few are trying to say those things are "privileges" and not rights.

--The Rizz

"Support the right of unborn males to bear arms!" --A public service announcement from Phyllis Schlafly, the Catholic Church, and the National Rifle Association

Love the lawyers

[Dalcius]

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.

Re:Since I doubt you actually read the legislation

[erat]

Seriously, if murder is already illegal, why does murder with a computer have have to have special legislation?

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...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This opens the door.

[Gumber]

Perhaps now we will have laws that those guilty of corporate or government frauds can be sentenced to life in prison too.

Treason

[derGott]

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.

Links in the Bills

[ebresie]

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...

Re:mod Parent insitefull

[carlos_benj]

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.

Hacker == life, Fraud == slap on wrist

[TheLastUser]

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.

Re:Hacker == life, Fraud == slap on wrist

[Hoi Polloi]

You left out that convicted executives also get to walk away with multi-million dollar severance packages for their troubles.

hackers vs. CEOs

[mrblah]

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...

[Reziac]

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.

Re:The flipside...

[Zathrus]

Very well put, and very true. And it's why I do think a lot of the legislation regarding crimes and jail time is out of whack.

And I've never understood the various legalese variations between murder and manslaughter and whatever else is out there.

Re:The flipside...

[pubjames]

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.

It should be equally illegal, but that doesn't mean all murders deserve the same punishment. Of course normal cases are easy to deal with, but the law has to deal with extremes as well.

I believe there was a case in the UK many years ago where a 'normal' member of the public deliberately killed (which of course is murder) a member of the IRA who he knew was going to set a bomb off, but didn't think there was time to do anything else (e.g. call the police) other than to kill him. I believe the jury voted 'not guilty' even though in the eyes of the law the man was clearly guilty of murder, and the judge accepted their verdict.

I've probably got the details all wrong but it serves to illustrate my argument. In this case -
where an otherwise law-abiding man has committed murder to save the lives of others - is it just that he is imprisoned for life? (personally I think in an ideal world the jury should have voted guilty, and then the judge should have given him a slap on the back of the hand, but of course if there is a minimum sentence for murder then the judge wouldn't have been able to do that).

Re:The flipside...

[Reziac]

Yeah. Sometimes I think we should go back to the old Norse system where the perpetrator paid a fine proportionate to the amount of actual damages caused by his crime, and throw out the prison system entirely except for cases where the perp's behaviour is an ongoing threat to other folks' life and limb. It's just too easy to sound "tough on crime" by hyping up some aspect of a particular crime, then imposing a stiff jail sentence -- yet there's scant evidence this actually accomplishes anything as a deterrant. (Witness the "War on Drugs.")

As to your other comment, IANAL, but as I vaguely understand the differences:

First-degree murder: when the killing is *planned*

Second-degree murder: spontaneous but intentional killing (no planning as such, but *at the time* you damn well meant 'em to wind up dead).

Manslaughter: accidental killing where you should have known better than to do whatever led to the death, like drinking and driving. (I think this used to be called "third-degree murder", some decades back.)

Then there are degrees of manslaughter too, but I have no idea how they differ.

Doubtless there are much more exact definitions almost anywhere you could look, but this is probably good enough for all practical purposes.

Re:The flipside...

[Reziac]

The law can't tell by itself if a killing was in self-defense (or in the case you cite, in defense of other people's lives). That's a judgment call that can only be made by those on the spot; hence the need for a trial. But since killing in self-defense is not murder by ANY definition, therefore not illegal, I don't see how it rationally falls under any umbrella of punishment.

Re:The flipside...

[Zathrus]

The problem with paying fines is that it begets a system where the rich can simply do what they want as long as they have enough money. Plus, how do you put a price on a human life? How do you deal with non-immediate costs like pollution? What about someone who can't afford to pay the price (e.g. - the captain of the Valdez)?

I knew about the differences between 1st and 2nd degree murder, and if manslaughter is a reterming of 3rd degree, I can grok that too. But it's absurd how light the sentence for manslaughter/3rd degree is in most cases... especially when we're talking about putting people away for life (and when you're talking federal, you're REALLY talking about life... parole is a state thing) for attempted murder. I mean, I can kill someone "accidentilly" and get 3-4 years in jail. But if I hack into a computer system and endanger someone's life I can get decades? Beyond absurd.

Which brings us back to what you said in the first place.

Re:The flipside...

[Reziac]

What you say about fines is true... but it's not much better when the legal system favours those who can afford better lawyers. Then the fine is effectively paid to the lawyer instead of to the state. If you can't afford the fine (lawyer's fees) you go to jail.

The relatively light sentence for manslaughter, I think is because in effect it's a penalty for being ignorant or for stupid juvenile behaviour, and the perp can presumably be taught, by a sharp but not excessive penalty, to be more careful henceforth. These perps typically aren't career criminals, they're ordinary moms and dads who had a lapse of judgment.

Why is this law unnecessary?

[apt142]

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!

Context is key.

[Picass0]

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.

Goodbye, beloved X-10 popups

[mattsucks]

From the article:

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."

No more ads for secret hot-chick-revealling surveillance cameras :-(

America, not what it was intended to be!

[blargisme]

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!

As endorsed by WorldCom???

[TobascoKid]

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

Re:As endorsed by WorldCom???

[Richard M. Ferko]

Not only that, but how much economic damage (DR DOS, Netscape, etc.) has been caused by Microsoft's monopolistic practices, for which they have been found guilty, and with nothing but a toothless consent decree as punishment? So their endorsement of this is good?

'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet ...

[RobK]

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.

I can see it now...

[SillyHamster]

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)

Burn the witches

[GrEp]

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.

this is not funny. but it still makes me laugh.

[theirpuppet]

corporate, white collar crime, is laughable. will the boardmembers of Enron get life sentences? no. but a hacker will. how nice.

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 !!

[dwhittington]

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!!!!

Have "hate-crimes" laws ever helped anyone?

[errxn]

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].

Re:Have "hate-crimes" laws ever helped anyone?

[electricmonk]

Would James Byrd be any less dead if he were not black?

Um, yes, actually. Did you miss the part about how they killed him because he was black?

Re:Have "hate-crimes" laws ever helped anyone?

[errxn]

Funny. My point is, does the act itself become more of a crime because the perpetrators and the victim don't share the same skin color? I think not. Murder is murder is murder, no matter who commits it or who is the victim, and it should be dealt with accordingly.

Re:Have "hate-crimes" laws ever helped anyone?

[Ozymandias_KoK]

Maybe in that case then it's better to ask if he is any more dead due to him being killed because he was black. It's still murder either way, right? I can see the point that if they can put multiple charges on for the same crime to set you thinking about plea bargains it's easier, but it is kind of strange. On the other hand, I think a lot of the so-called hate crimes (at least at the federal level) are civil not criminal, so it has a lower burden of proof.

Re:Have "hate-crimes" laws ever helped anyone?

[Rasputin]

Would James Byrd be any less dead if he were not black?

Um, yes, actually. Did you miss the part about how they killed him because he was black?

Funny. My point is, does the act itself become more of a crime because the perpetrators and the victim don't share the same skin color? I think not. Murder is murder is murder, no matter who commits it or who is the victim, and it should be dealt with accordingly.

1) I don't think he was joking. If the man hadn't been black he wouldn't be dead.

2) There is a long history in the US of killing minority group members - especially blacks. In many parts of the country it was not even considered to be a crime (at least it wasn't prosecuted). The "hate-crime" laws send a message that it is illegal and that we, as a society, are going to make a special effort of prosecuting the perpetrators. In short, it is a break with some rather vile traditional values.

Re:Have "hate-crimes" laws ever helped anyone?

[errxn]

1) I don't think he was joking. If the man hadn't been black he wouldn't be dead.

(aaargh)I'm not talking about the perpetrators or motivations in this case, just the act itself. Just because they killed him because he was black does not make it more or less of a murder. What if James Byrd had been a white man who was murdered for stealing the killers' car? Would the fact that he was not of a different racial makeup somehow make his murder less of a crime? It shouldn't.

2) There is a long history in the US of killing minority group members - especially blacks. In many parts of the country it was not even considered to be a crime (at least it wasn't prosecuted). The "hate-crime" laws send a message that it is illegal and that we, as a society, are going to make a special effort of prosecuting the perpetrators. In short, it is a break with some rather vile traditional values.

I agree with the first part. There is a long history of this type of behavior, and yes, it is pretty reprehensible. However, the second part is where I beg to differ. We have plenty of existing laws that can be enforced more effectively to achieve the same effect. There is no need to enact more legislation just to satisfy the PC crowd. And that, at its root, is all that "hate-crime" legislation is.

12 to 15 months actually to be served

[Ungood]

For good behavior, if she can manage that.

What a crock.

Replace "hack the stoplight" with "Steal your gun"

[Karl Cocknozzle]

What if someone roots your system, and then hacks into some bank, then gets caught? Should you be held responsible, or the bank? Gee, how about the person who knowingly did something illegal? That is a novel idea.

What if you have an unsecured firearm, loaded, sitting on your front porch. Somebody comes by, steals it, and kills somebody with it.

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 .45 unsecured?

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?

Re:'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet .

[Sand_Man]

'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.

Congress has the last say.

[groundhog00]

Its got to pass the Hill man... and it ALSO has to get past Bush. We'll see.

So, let's reconcile this.

[Inoshiro]

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?

Does This mean and end to those X10 Camera Ads?

[Phrogman]

"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.

Re:Replace "hack the stoplight" with "Steal your g

[gosand]

What if you have an unsecured firearm, loaded, sitting on your front porch. Somebody comes by, steals it, and kills somebody with it. As the owner of the gun, are you at all responsible?

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.

Re:If attempted murder can already get you life...

[joshyc]

I think they're mostly doing it to bring their point across, that hacking is a serious crime and will be punished... to make people think twice before cracking that password.

slippery slope

[ignorant_newbie]

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.

concern

[geekoid]

"... 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.

Re:concern

[mindstrm]

Well, it seems this FIRST requreis that there is a violation in the first place.. meaning unauthorized use/access of a system.

So you accidentally erased some files, even though it was a totally unexpected side-effect of whta you did, and you DEFINATELY didn't mean for it to happen...

You weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

Re:All your freedoms are belong to us...

[SkipChaser]

Belgium, Hmm... haven't you looked lately.
You're really in the United States of Europe aka EU.
What's printed on your money?
Just try to buy and sell using non-EU approved units and measures.
"You will be assimulated" seems to be the EU motto.
Is there a EU Internet Tax yet? They floated that balloon here and it got shot down (freedom of speech wise not right to bear wise).
Wonder what the common language will be?
Well one thing to remember is that if you believe your rights come from a piece of paper, then all they have to do is rewrite or burn the paper then YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

WEll.. actually...

[mindstrm]

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

[mcmatt]

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.

Re:Its not as harsh as it sounds: Jurisdiction

[Prof_Dagoski]

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 US does not answer to criminals

[ColGraff]

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.

Re:The US does not answer to criminals

[PhilHibbs]

I agree with the US's military action in Afghanistan. I'm questioning the 'treason' of John Walker Lindh.

Re:The US does not answer to criminals

[green1]

this is quite interesting... I keep seeing this image in my head... the taliban call up the american government and ask them to send over john smith from montana who they suspect had something to do with a bombing of a major centre in afghanastan. The US government asks for proof and the taliban say no. would you expect the US to hand over this person? of course not... now substitute US for Taliban and vice-versa...

now I'm not saying that Bin Laden is innocent. and I'm not saying that the Taliban would necesarilly have beleived the US proof. however take a look for just a moment at how this makes the US look...

and before you start thinking "but the US is different" ask yourself what REALLY is different. the US government is just the government of one country. no more or less important then that of any other country. The US only enjoys it's current position in the world because it is currently "the" superpower in the world... just keep in mind that superpowers come and go... and someday when the states get to see the world from the other side of the fence things might not seem quite so "fair"...

just a thought...

Terrification

[wytcld]

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.
___

Re:Terrification

[RazorJ_2000]

Ahh...an interesting point of view. How refreshing!

Justice for all...

[wtoconnor]

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:)

Did Ken Lay Ever Use a Computer?

[Peahippo]

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.

OT, but Operation TIPS is so much worse!

[necrognome]

A live performance of 1984, coming to a living room near you:

Associated Press (NYTimes link)

Operation TIPS

Mouse as dangerous as gun

[Felinoid]

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.

Where's the mods when you need em?

[Mulletproof]

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.

Not so fast...

[Ominous Armed Cow]

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.

Re:Not so fast...

[sketchkid]

no, i wasnt trying to draw political lines. i was just saying that im sure it got through the house quickly b/c of party majorities.

Re:Not so fast...

[Warped-Reality]

Getting a bit OT here, but i think this is an example of why political parties are evil... i'm sure that Bush will pass it, simply because the Republican house passed it - whether he really agrees with it or not.

As dangerous as a bullet or bomb

[KILNA]

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.

other scenarios

[lingqi]

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?

I have to laugh at the irony.

[theolein]

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?

What's the diff between hacking & bad accounti

[lsd4all]

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.

"Drop the mouse,

[bembleton]

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?

Re:L0pht's testimony? Backscratching at its finest

[weld]

Don't believe everything you read in The Register. Especially don't believe everything that Gweeds says that The Register prints. The L0pht testified to the senate at the request of Senator Thompson. We didn't even know who NIPC was. It was only formed a couple months before we testified.

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

Oh government, not again.

[TuxBox]

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.

Re:Simpsons' version?

[C0LDFusion]

All I know is that it had the following in it:

"I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay."

America...home of the free....BAH!!

[Newer Guy]

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!

surreptitious electronic surveillance?

[Heisenbug]

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 ...

Of course

[willpost]

Now that we all know that having an affair is more serious than cooking the books.

Oh, I See...

[Eric Damron]

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?

And the pen is mightier than the sword, right?

[dougmc]

A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'

(Said by Lamar Smith, R-Tex.)

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 Hacker Manifesto Redux

[Mulletproof]

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.

Re:The Hacker Manifesto Redux

[chuckw]

Do you feel better now?

Re:The Hacker Manifesto Redux

[Rakarra]

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".
...
The Hacker's Manifesto: Self righteousness masquerading as intelligence.

For God's sake, someone please mod this up. It's something that should be posted every single time someone posts that nonsense that is the "Hackers' Manifesto."

Right vs. Priviledge; Gun vs. Car

[PatientZero]

I respectfully submit that your analogy to a car is fundamentally flawed. It is a privalege to drive an automobile. It is a right to keep and bear arms, even if the government has a legitimate interest in regulating that right.

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.

Not Like a License Plate

[PatientZero]

The point is that when a gun is used in a crime, the police have a starting point to use in tracking down who used the gun. In this way it is much the same as license plates: The license plate does not prevent a gangbanger or convicted felon from stealing the car - but when a car is seen leaving a crime, the license plate is used to help the police track down who did the crime by giving them a starting point for the investigation.

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.

Re:Not Like a License Plate

[slashclone]

Such databases of barrel markings alredy exist (atleast here in Russia)

Wrong!

[Mulletproof]

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?

Re:Time to move to Canada

[Mashiki]

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 :)

Omissions

[Mulletproof]

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?

Bash == WMD ??

[Rattle]

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.

Re:Simpsons' version?

[adjusting]

Here you go.

Gibson as Prophet?

[TygerFish]

In his novel 'Neuromancer,' William Gibson describes terrorists and pranksters who invade the computer system of a building with fatal consequences. In Neuromancer, the sensenet run leaves the reader with the question of what a government would do when computer access allows hackers to 'put things in the water' of a large office building, or to cause a panic by making everyone believe that it had been done. The novel leads one to wonder what a government like ours would do about that in terms of its laws.

Now we know.

Considering that the dates mentioned in the novel tell the reader that the action takes place sometime past mid-century, you could think of the current legislation as a matter of the Government's 'jumping the gun' in a big way.

One thing that the proposed new law shows is the a disturbing recurring pattern of short-sightedness, immunity for the proposers of the law from its effects, and an increased advantage to the forces to governing bodies and commercial interests with a reason to dislike privacy and individual rights.

Minus the superheated rhetoric on both sides of the debate here on Slashdot, some things make it through the mist intact and when they do, you find that the law is Redundant at best.

There are already multiple layers of law in place to prevent people from acting on impulses to destroy others by any demonstrable means and there is no real-world reason to bother targeting a specific technology: whether you walk into a hospital and turn off someone's vital life support machinery with your index finger, on site, or do it from a thousand miles away with a script, you're still guilty of either murder or manslaughter. If the crime involves interstate travel or flight, it automatically becomes a federal matter with attendant federal penalties. If the crime is committed across national boundaries, the law has no effect whatsoever unless the foreign government is willing to extradite you to the United States. A government unfriendly to U.S. interests might have no inclination whatsoever, and in this case, the law has no effect. In this light, you can see the proposed legislation as a special penalty structure that really applies only to citizens and residents of the United States.

The proposed law is also dangerous to what we traditionally think of as our right to privacy and it can be seen as an end-run around the protections that keep anyone with a badge from opening your mail or listening in on your phone with no more cause than the lawman's mood and his having time on his hands.

In this light, the problem is not that someone possessing the equipment and the authority cannot invade your privacy (the means are there), but that doing so carries with it, civil and criminal penalties which dissuade the overzealous. If misused, a law which negates those penalties creates a shield for potential malefactors. It does not require paranoia to imagine a scenario in which a policeman automatically escapes what would otherwise be career-destroying legal complications by simply saying that he or she was acting in good faith during an investigation when he or she bullied your ISP into showing him or her the content of all your emails for months and where they had been routed. It has great potential for ugliness. Anyone can be the target of a malicious or mistaken prosecution that damages his or her life, one implication of the proposed legislation's becoming law would be that it would weaken you ability to redress the issue in the courts by suing the ones responsible: how do you sue someone for carrying out the provisions of federal law?

Like many of the laws involving technology/intellectual property that touch on individual rights, the proposers of the legislation are themselves for all intents and purposes immune to the consequences of what they have written in that they are unable, or at least highly unlikely, to commit the crime in question no matter what their motivation and they have nothing whatsoever to lose by voting for it.

In much the same way that a wealthy, white computer illiterate has nothing to fear from stiffened penalties for the possession of crack cocaine, or the DMCA, the same individual has neither the inclination nor the intellectual wherewithal to maliciously interfere with computer systems.

Right about now, writing one's senator seems like a very good idea.

Yes. yes I do.

[Mulletproof]

A bit. Thanks for asking ^__^

Gun mags.

[MAXOMENOS]

I fully agree. Whenever I go into a gun store or read a gun magazine, the pro-gun propaganda always seems to be infused with racism, homophobia, ultra-right-wing religious extremism, etc. That alienates me, even though I am a 2nd amendment defender.

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.

Re:A mouse

[lateralus_1024]

"A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'" I'll believe it when I see Chuck E.Cheese's grill up on the FBI's 10 most wanted web site. ---------

Jurisdiction - just change 'hackers' to 'spammers'

[silentbozo]

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)

Which is why we need this...

[jjeff]

As soon as I read this story I thought of this.

A cloud with silver lining, or silver in a cloud?

[slip of york]

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...

Sounds like you have looked at all angles

[h8macs]

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

Great, But Where's the Corporate Equivalent??

[mojotek]

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?

predictable

[SlugLord]

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.

Cool

[PatientZero]

I figured it may be doable in the future, but it's interesting to know it's already available. I understand the fear that gun-confiscation laws could be passed (as they have been in the past), and having a registration database makes this enforceable.

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.

Hackers / Crackers

[Simon Kongshoj]

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.

A touch of reality...

[optical_phiber]

Most attackls actually happen outside US. How are they going to prosecute *real* hackers is a mystery to me...

Whither X10?

[Denial of Cervix]

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

Red Light, Green Light

[The Monster]

Saith Karl Cocknozzle... (emphasis mine):

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.

Just a few words too many. At the hardware level, far below where any programming can be done, a traffic light should not have any possible states in which green lighted drivers' paths cross.
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.

Re:What About Liability for Buggy Code

[evilpenguin]

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...

Re:All your freedoms are belong to us...

[innerlimit]

As far EU-approved measures go, these are international standards!
The tax thing, yeah i heard about it some 2 odd years ago, don't remember if it actually went ahead or not.

Giving a hacker life? well, remember the crackdown on RADIKAL : RADIKAL had pages on how to derail a train, admittedly, no hacker stuff, but a like the many bomb pages, it shows nutters how to hurt REAL people
If you physically hurt someone, even indirect, like the 911-services dropping, you stand accused!

i can still smoke weed, say pretty much anyhting i want and just for fun, my ISP only charges a quarter of the bandwith at night, so i get 40G this month!

dumness

[t_allardyce]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

computers don't kill ppl, ppl do

[SystematicPsycho]

this must be a first, a life sentence charge without even physically harming anyone, something doesn't add up.

No law against killing with nuclear weapons?

[0111 1110]

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.

click start

[zapod4]

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.

Vote the Libertarians

[coli2]

They will give back your rights. Vote for them in every election, before it is too late.

Fine

[whereiswaldo]

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.

Law of Unintended Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Rep. from Tex.

[Zealard]

..."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.

How about those accountants then?

[cylcyl]

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?

America is a great country!

[Tokerat]

...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.

Conspiracy *to murder* U.S. Nationals

[robolemon]

Make that Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals.

What happened to community service?

[LuYu]

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!"

Conspiracy Theory reference: Accident? You decide.

[TheCrackRat]

What about Sirhan Sirhan?

Re:All your freedoms are belong to us...

[sp1nl0ck]

So much for the land of the free. The US is becoming more like Iraq every day. Does Bush want to get rid of Saddam Hussein so he can take over the newly-vacated position as world's most-hated dictator?

For a democracy, you lot seem to be very happy to just roll over and take it when it comes to legislation. Even us conservative (small "C") Brits have managed to force a rethink recently over the enforcement of increased powers of surveillance in the RIP act... Do things only ever get fixed in the US if you throw money at them? Maybe you should start a "sponsor your senator" program... Then the people who the US legislature claims to represent can get legislation passed that they want to see.

Don't lecture the world about democracy until you start practising it yourself. You seem to have forgotten that your own founding fathers wrote "We the people..." not "We the corporations..."

Modding and Lawmaking

[TheCrackRat]

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.

LIFE...Liberty...and the Pursuit of.....

[g00ber_sm00tch]

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.

That there is some terrible web design.

[bcaulf]

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.

It's a suitable punishment...

[krypticide]

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.

Re:All your freedoms are belong to us...

[Thorstein]

Umm.. The Declaration of Independence (That Would be independence from the Brits.) allows the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves. Governments fear an armed populace. This is just a Bill...that WILL be defeated...man you guys should not have slept through Government class. Thorstein