Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phishers Face Jail Time Under New U.S. Bill

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the doing-the-time dept.

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."

5 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The crime is creating a website? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Any that do should be rightfully concerned.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  2. Please explain why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Please explain why by glyn.phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget Illegal Use of Trademark.

  3. How is this different... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From exisitng conspiracy to commit fraud crimes?

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

  4. This may actually help by wingspan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.