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."
One can only begin to imagine what this will bring - an amendment to the bill prohibiting extradition of media company execs to Australia.
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.
Then again, Australia has a long and distinguished record of being a penal colony for the British, maybe it's time to reinstate that concept and ship RIAA and MPAA execs, all of Arthur Andersen, and all Fortune 500 CEOs to a remote part of the Aussie outback. We can even turn it into a spectator sport - Survivor 2.0 - broadcasting it live with free Internet feeds from ROVs orbiting the area. "Will Bill Gates eat Steve Ballmer? Tune in tomorrow on Survivor 2.0, same time, same server!"
Money for nothing, pix for free
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.
I envision Steve, the Crocodile Hunter, sneaking up on a Recording Exec and sticking his thumb up his bum hole. Ah, this one's angry! Look at his markings. He's a beaut'. Now ordinarily we would let him go. But, as it turns out this is one of the most dangerous creatures in the world. Up there with Lawyers and US Congressmen. No, instead, we're going to take this one back with us. We'll put him in a nice safe place where he can listen to Britney Spears all day long.
Someone hates these cans.
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.
The way I see it, the Australians are calling the game right. What the law is essentialy allowing is vigilante vandalism within the US. It's the same as if the MPAA/RIAA sent goons over to whack your home entertainment system with baseball bats.
Now even if this were allowed in the USA, it ain't allowed in Australia*. Even if the target is an American, as soon as the goons start vandalising Australian property, they're subject to Australian jurisdiction. Their corporate masters could aso be charged for giving the orders ("taking out a contract").
The conduct complained of here would also violate computer crime laws in most states. Thus, while Valenti might avoid federal prison for violation of the CFAA, he might still have to face charges and related civiil actions for violation of State laws in Florida.
Absent an express preemption clause, the bill would not have the desired effect for its authors -- and if they added an express preemption clause, the bill might become defective as unconstitutional under a host of theories.
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
Well yes, the executive always has controlled the armed forces, and even much of foreign affairs. However, the legislature could always just pass a law forbidding military action against X nation, and that'd be binding on the executive.
No it isn't. The president can invoke the War Powers Act of 1973. It allows for 60 days of war-like activity without the intervention of Congress. The president is required to consult with Congress first but that usually never happens. The issue of a president causing a war is only a problem when there is enough backlash to stop him/her from doing so. I'm not trolling but there won't be much backlash against a war ever since the Vietnam War caused so much division in the country. Anti-war advocates are generally written off as anti-American by the public and their cries for a halt to aggressiveness is largely ignored.
Blame the 60's and early 70's for america's war-like culture. Well, you can also blame other countries/organizations for trying to kill Americans just because they're Americans but people don't like to talk about that.
What if the P2P hackers (coders) were to include a clause into the EULA about no profit organization can use the software, make it a license violation if the mpaa or the riaa use the software. I'm not saying it's a solution, however, it may buy some time. That or we can pay the kids at their isp to null route them into an intranet
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Dear [Michael Eisner]:
You have been selected as the winner of this month's fabulous appliance giveaway! You may claim your free Koala-brand washer/dryer set, Antarctic Refrigerator or Shrimp-On-The-Barbie barbecue set! Your plane ticket for coming to claim this prize is included in this envelope. Simply fly to Australia round-trip on us, and be available for us to capture on film as we photograph the winners*.
Don't delay - act now to claim your prize.
Sincerely,
Australian Bureau of Law Enforcement and Consumer Marketing
*In front and side shots
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
When flying into the country, and the customs man asks if you have a criminal record, ask innocently, "Is that still a requirement?"
Infuriate left and right