Phishers Face Jail Time Under New U.S. Bill

An anonymous reader writes "Democrat Patrick Leahy has introduced a new federal anti-phishing bill that would impose jail terms up to five years and fines up to $250,000 for criminals creating fake web site designed to con consumers in to giving them their personal information. 'Some phishers can be prosecuted under wire fraud or identity theft statutes, but often these prosecutions take place only after someone has been defrauded - that leaves plenty of time to cover their tracks. Traditional wire fraud and identity theft statutes are not sufficient to respond to phishing.' said Leahy in a statement regarding the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005."

Comments

Re:The crime is creating a website?

[LiquidCoooled]

Parody sites do not usually require you to give up account numbers of other information.

Any that do should be rightfully concerned.

Great.....

[Capt James McCarthy]

Congress is all over it. Now the problem is sure to be solved. :-/ I'm afraid that this lip service will once again make the general public think this will solve the problem. Nope. It may slow down folks within the US borders, but we all know the true result of bills like this. It just won't work.

Please explain why

[Anonymous Coward]

"Traditional wire fraud and identity theft statutes are not sufficient to respond to phishing.' said Leahy in a statement regarding the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005."

Please explain why. New laws suck. 99% of the time the old existing laws are completely capable of handling the problem... just enforce the laws we have.

Re:Please explain why

[glyn.phillips]

Don't forget Illegal Use of Trademark.

Re:Please explain why

[RobotRunAmok]

Leahy is a lawmaker. Lawmakers make laws. There is no glamor for him in enforcing existing (i.e., someone else's) laws.

How many congresspeople do you know who run for re-election on a platform of, "Hey, y'know, we've pretty much got a law for every possible crime imaginable, I just spent my term minimizing bureacracy so Justice, the cops and the courts could do their thing" ?

It's all about the re-election. "Hey, lookit me! The hip Anti-Phish Candidate! A year ago it wasn't even a word, but last week I wrote a law against it!! Who's your Re-Electable Daddy?!"

It's the same headline-generating mentality that prompts these bozos to make cellphone-specific anti-driving-while-distracted laws.

Re:Please explain why

[dasunt]

Please explain why. New laws suck. 99% of the time the old existing laws are completely capable of handling the problem... just enforce the laws we have.

Here's my theory what happens:

Imagine a congressman or congresswoman wants to appear to be doing something. Or perhaps they are just naive. Either way, they come up with a new law which more or less covers an existing law. We'll use a hypothetical "Violence against Women Act 2005", which makes kidnapping a woman across state lines a federal offense.

Now, its already illegal to kidnap someone across state lines, as we all should know. However, considering that there is a 2006 election just around the corner, the average member of congress will not vote against this act -- just imagine the attack ads if he did!

Look at the AARP -- they are being attacked by USA Next for supporting gay marriage. What really happened is that Ohio was passing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The bill was broad enough to apply to unmarried cohabiting heterosexual seniors. The AARP, acting in the best interests of its members opposed the bill, and now we see ads about how AARP is for gay marriage.

So, let me ask you one question: Why are you against punishing criminals? Your opponent will be asking you this question in 2006.

As always, there is a Simpson's quote for this. Episode 2F11, where Bart discovers a comet that happens to be directly headed towards Springfield:

KENT BROCKMAN
With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--

CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?

FLOOR
Boo!

SPEAKER
Bill defeated.

How is this different...

[91degrees]

From exisitng conspiracy to commit fraud crimes?

Why do we need a new law when an existing one will do?

This may actually help

[wingspan]

Phishing exists because the phisher has a favorable risk/reward relationship. This legislation will help change that relationship by allowing law enforcement to get involved earlier. Today, LE has to wait for a fraud to occur and someone to complain. If my understanding is correct, under this legislation LE can get involved much earlier, when phishing or pharming is first detected. Earlier involvement means less time for the phish site to be operating (reducing return), and less time to destroy evidence (increasing risk).

Of course, whether they will become involved or not is subject to debate.

Re:The crime is creating a website?

[josh3736]

Christ, take off your tinfoil! This is an entirely reasonable and proper use of legislative power.

This bill stops Bad Guys® from stealing the inexperienced users' life savings before they actually steal anyone's money. It does not outlaw building any website, just those designed with the intent and purpose to steal your bank password.

Re:better solution.

[Speare]

I agree...the more we "police" the internet ourselves, the less the government will need to regulate it.

An' if we take 'em out o'the holdin' cell afore their trial, an' string 'em up inna tree, then the liberal activist judges cain't set 'em free! Who's wit' me? Grab yer hoods an' meet me by the libary at half past midnight. We're gonna do some justice.

Why can I murder someone for less jail time?

[IpsissimusMarr]

Is it just me or is doing something illegal in the cyber-world more dangerous than the real world? How is it possible that I get more jail time for cracking into and defacing a web page than I'd get for shooting someone?

For our 'cyber-laws' we should be taking precidence from our existing laws. Instead of levying new fines for phishing, add this definition onto our current fraud and identity theft laws. Instead of creating crazy fines for spammers (although I want to see them pay just like everyone else) and model the punishments similarly to the do-no-call lists?

Law-makers don't see the internet as an extension of the physical world, and in term of law it should be seen in this light. Extend Current laws, don't make them up in a flight of fancy.