Slashdot Mirror
American Movie Execs Could Face Aussie Jails For Hacking
pegacat points to a story in the Melbourne Age which says that "American movie, recording and software executives could be arrested if they travel to Australia, could be prohibited from entering Australia, or could be extradited to face criminal charges if Californian Democrat congressman Howard Berman's copyright protection bill, which allows cracking
of computers, passes into law." That's because "Under section 9a of the Victorian Summary Offences Act (1966), 'a person must not gain access to, or enter, a computer system or part of a computer system without lawful authority to do so'. The penalty if convicted is up to six months' jail."
Yeah, and a law permitting the US armed forces to invade Australia to free captured media company execs.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
And please, don't quote the Gandhi 'First, they laugh at you' thing again. Without a concerted effort from other Western nations (at a minimum), the closest thing this approximates is a soggy spitball and straw against a tank.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
The UK has similiar legislation, and I'm pretty sure most of the rest of EU has similiar legislation.
Does this mean that movie executives will not be able to travel outside of the US at all?! Cool!
Yeah, so I'm a dreamer. I know full well that Tony "Grining Laky" Blair would never arrest an American movie executive for something like this. It would make George Bush (His pal) cry, and we can't have that!
Things are right, wrong, or grey.
If something is wrong don't do it. Take cracking or DoS attacks. Totally wrong. Lock them up and throw away the key.
But you start to legislate that it's okay for some users (I don't care how much money Hollywood has, they are still users just like you and me) to crack and DoS others then you make it grey. So the next time you catch a cracker you've got a much harder job dealing with him. And the next time it's harder still. And fairly soon cracking just becomes one of those things you live with.
At least the Aussies are doing their hardest to keep it black and white.
But I don't think it makes much differance. The US Government doesn't seem to give a toss about what the rest of the world thinks. As long as those campaign contributions keep pouring in nothing else matters. (Don't you just love democracy.)
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
the problem is that the australian authorities are unlikely to charge these americans under this law. the question is whether extradition is available for civil charges brought by (possibly many) autralians against said americans?
i know that if i go pay a man to kill my wife that i can be charged with murder.
if Rosen pays someone to hack for her why shouldn't she be responsible for it in the same fashion
Wouldn't the bill be considered lawful authority? If Australian law can be applied to US citizens, it's likely (though I ain't anal) that US law would apply to those same citizens.
*snort* Laws passed by any sovereign country are only valid inside that country. The USA can pass as many crap bills as it wants - Australian courts would likely tell you to fuck off and give you six months jail for that kind of argument.
And as for a "long and distinguished record of being a penal colony" 1788 (first landing) to 1868(last convicts shipped off to Australia) is 80 years, and 134 years ago now. So back off, pal.
Although , we *do* have a lot of desert out there... maybe a survivor 2.0 as suggested would be ok.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Yeah, and a law permitting the US armed forces to invade Australia to free captured media company execs.
Since when did the US need a law to invade foreign countries? Hell, they do it even where there are international laws forbidding them from doing it.
Australia is trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US (you know, that country which is so fond of free trade that it erects massive tarrif and subsidy barriers to all and sundry). I imagine implementation of all so-called intellectual property laws that are in the US but not yet in Australia will be one of the first requirements for such an arrangement, and I imagine the Howard government will bend over so quick that half the country will get whiplash.
This isn't the first case where copyrights versus consumer rights have been clashed (often with the consumers winning):
1) Jukebox CD burner machines are legal
2) A small video chain wins case with respect to rental vs retail DVD prices
3) Use of Mod chips in Playstations ruled to be legal
4) DVD zoning currently under investigation by the local consumer protection watch dog
5) Watch this space.... (probably a few more)
Is there something culturally different between the two continents?
Or is it that some people in Australia believe that all this extra copy protection (real and legal) does nothing for the problem and harms the legitimate users?
[Coward hiding under his rock]
The pasing of this law by the American Government may be all the "lawful authority" that the Australians require.
The break-in would be occurring in Australia, not the U.S. If such international authority of U.S. law existed, there would be no law besides U.S. law. Remember the Helms anti-Cuba act, which let the U.S. sanction any foreign business doing business with Cuba? That didn't go far because the EU (which does lots of business with Cuba) didn't like the U.S. trying to extend our laws onto their turf.
Claiming immunity under the Campaign Contributor Hacking Permission Act might have just the same effect.
Contrary to calling congressmen to stop this thing, I'm thinking of calling them to keep it going. It's a gamble, but this law is sooo bad on both sensible and constitutional grounds (14th Amendment) that maybe it'll be the one to finally raise public awareness as to what's going on.
Aussies, time to amend your act to say that if someone performs hacking as a company employee, all officers in that chain of command are liable for jail terms up to the level the general action was even informally approved. We know Rosen loves the idea, so bye-bye.
Interestingly enough, Valenti is backing off because he realizes the bill allows any copyright holder to hack, not just the big guys.
Or continue the hypocrisy with...
c) If an Australian broke an American law while in Afghanistan then the Americans will kidnap the Australian and hold him illegally without representation in a US military base.
Generally not, most extradition treaties require that it be a crime in both places, and since it would be legal in the US they would good.
This is the same way that various gambleing site work, the owners all live in places where a gambleing site is legal, but as soon as they would return to the US they would be in trouble.
It could be interesting if the australian law allowed for payment of monies because then I presume you could sue in the australian courts for the money and since most large corporations have an office in australia the could get money from that.
The other thing is now some countries have started to be stupid and pass law that say that will arrest people who have commited crimes anywhere in the world. Now if they ever actually do that could cause alot of problems.
Indeed, this would also be illegal in the UK under Section 1 of the 'The Computer Misuse Act 1990' ;
0 01 8_en_1.htm
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990
As for the possibility of Tony Blair (UK Prime-Minister), some how excusing this, that is not likely. There is plenty of separation between the UK Judiciary and Politicians. UK Judges are not elected but appointed and once appointed are nearly impossible to remove. UK Judges also seem to regularly take delight in giving politicians the finger, when the latter attempt to step on their toes. i.e. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2162940.stm
None, and there is nothing that stoppes a US citizen from going to netherlands and smoking marijuana, just don't bring any back with you.
However at the same time if the company you worked for had a drug policy that restricted drug use and you tested has having used drugs, just thoses during the time you where in the netherlands, you would probably not have a defense saying You only used them in the Neterlands where it is legal.
** Windows has detected a mouse movement.
** Please restart Windows so changes can take effect.
ROTFLBTCASTC
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
ever note how hoe mnay americans call for law & order, but are willing to walk away from it when it suits their purpose?
hacking does't fall under consumer law. It falls under criminal law.
To put it in a way that makes sense to the impressionable out there, these execs are seeking immunity from acts of cyber-crime on regular individuals(like you...you never used napster or kazaa though, right?).
to put in a way the rest of us can comprehend, this amalgamation of corporations is seeking the legal permission to the equivilant of vigilante justice. Unfortunately, while this is generally illegal(especially when this form of 'justice' takes the form of an especially illegal act itself) for the common man, it's a-okay for a huge, irresponsible, amoral corporation to have, because they have the money to bribe the oh-so-bribable US polititans. The results of this law passing would be far reaching, possibly setting precident down a long road where corporations begin to gain more and more rights to seek vigilante justice, first on-line, but someday, perhaps in the real world.
While I disagreed with the imprisonment of dimitry, because it was due to a law which did not make sense, was immoral, and was obviously bought, the thought of imprisoning criminals who happen to be rich enough to get an exemption appeals to me.
It's been a long time.
It is this confusion that justifies the President's right (not necessarily the Joint Chief of Staff's right, though presidents have often accepted their advice) to order limited military action against specific threats without the approval of Congress. When Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon abused their right to perform "limited" military actions in the ridiculously long Vietnam conflict, Congress passed a law exerting its power of the purse over future military operations lasting six months or more. The President must now get Congress's approval before launching such substantial operations or else risk running out of money for his war machine. Former President Bush received permission from Congress for the Gulf War. While the resolution may not have contained the word "war" in it, Congress did everything except declar war on Iraq when it gave the commander-in-chief carte blanche in carrying out Persian Gulf area operations.
Personally, I believe that it is crucial to the seperation of powers to allow the president to have a substantial amount of leeway in controlling the military. If the president needed Congress's approval for everything regarding the armed forces, the president would become little more than a figurehead and the U.S. federal government would essentially be a parlimentary system. However, Congress's power over the federal budget does serve as a check against the president abusing his right to unilaterally order huge military operations that can end up costing the nation tremendously, both in dollars and in lives.
A declaration of war requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate to approve it. No House vote is required.
All funding measures, however, are required to be initiated in the House of Representatives.
This was not even similar to the consititutional protocols. Not even similar. Now I will grant that it's harder to get a 2/3 vote out of 100 people than out of 26. It's even harder to get them together quickly. But it shouldn't really be that difficult if it's a matter that really is urgent, and if it isn't, what are we doing going to war over it?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.