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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.