Slashdot Mirror
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."
I hope I don't get arrested for phishing in the wardrobe after a night out.
liqbase
Assuming it works and is enforceable, of course. I think phishing is a pretty low way to live your life - preying on the gullible. Been done for thousands of years, true, but taking advantage of people is no way to live your life IMO.
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Parody sites do not usually require you to give up account numbers of other information.
Any that do should be rightfully concerned.
liqbase
The Phish stocks in all oceans around the world have reached dangerously low levels
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
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.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
This one will join CANSPAM in the Legislative Hall of Fame under the necessary but useless category.
Uh oh! Does this mean they are going to jail Prince Ombutu Nagala of Nigeria? He was going to split $28M with me!!!!!!!!1
Allow us to create online mobs.
some of us white hats and come grey hats are pissed at these scumbags, give us the ability to go after them with our skillz.
let me take down that server, swipe their domain name, dig in and find who they are and utterly destroy their credit, or better yet have fun listing them as convicted child pornographers and other things.
Let me use my 'Uber Skillz' and my phat beyotchin' and fly laptop to bring them to my own flava of justice.
WORD!
I'm glad to see that phishing is being taken seriously! Just because it happens on the internet, doesn't mean it's not as serious as any other type of scam.
Not a bad thing, but I think actual fraud or clear intent should have to be proven. Opportunity and unproven intent should not be weigh beyond a reasonable doubt.
"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.
From exisitng conspiracy to commit fraud crimes?
Why do we need a new law when an existing one will do?
Senator Leahy is engaged in a legislative battle against online scammers, and he needs your support. If you would like to help, click on this link. To ensure that you are a registered voter, you will be asked to verify your name, address, and social security number. You may then make a donation online, right from your checking account!
Evil is the money of root.
The crime is tricking someone into giving up sensitive information such as bank account info so that their money can be stolen (as one example). Building the web site is a tool to accomplish the theft. I don't believe, however, that the legislation will outlaw websites in general.
http://www.busyweather.com/
I already start up an app to poison their databases every time I get one ofthose paypal,ebay or lately, the yahoo greeting card phishing scams.
point a particular java app at the url and let her fly filling in all the form fields over and over and over again with what looks like real but is generated from files crap.
if the asshats have to sift through 300 bad records to find something useable, at least I slowed them down a bit.
If more people in the know did this to them instead of the worthless action of reporting them it would make a bigger impact. the last one I reported to ebay was still up days later. My second alert to ebay was responded with "we cant deal with them all, go away" but in nicer words.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
just so long as they leave my free ipod scam alone...
There is a major difference between a parody web site and a web site that was created with the intention of fooling people into giving away information that can lead to criminal usage. I've never seen a parody web site ask for a social security number, bank number, etc.
Additionally, all parody sites I've seen either are blatantly obvious parodies or state somewhere on the site that they're parodies. Phishing sites won't do that because they're trying to convince you that they're genuine.
Apples and oranges.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I've not read the bill (only this article), but I wonder if this could be used to prosecute other internet low-life that try to gather personal data for purposes not sanctioned by the submitter of the information. And taking over someone's computer without their knowledge would certainly seem to be a type of fraud under this bill.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
As a new federal law called "The Anti-Phishing Act of 2005" is being pushed by the U.S. legislative, hackers everywhere celebrate their victory over the English language.
."0ur n3x7 74rg47z 4r3 "h4x0r", "l337" 4nd "pwn3d". 0ur l0bbj gr0up iz z7r0ng, 4nd w3 b3li3v3 d4j will 4lz0 b3 in7r0duc3d bj d4 3nd 0ph d4 j34r."
"W3 pl4n 2 in7r0duc3 z00n 0d4r l337 w0rdz in d4 c0n73mp0r4n v0c4bul4rj", said the appointed speaker for the "H4x0rz" community, who prefers to remain anonymous
Just
This is a first shot across the bow. The bill will probably undgergo substantial debate and amendment as it moves through Congress, but I expect this has a chance to become law.
I've met Sen. Leahy. He's an old-school Vermont Democrat who's held pretty much every state-level elected office except governor and lieutenant governor. I've had a couple of e-mail exchanges with him on CAN-SPAM. When that law first passed, he was cautiously backing it as a reasonable first step. He's realized lately, however, that it's been largely ineffective. The anti-phishing bill is his first real leading charge at cyber-scamming and it reflects some of his earlier frustration with Congress's inability to deal effectively with Internet issues.
(Or much else, in many people's opinion.)
Leahy ruffled some feathers in the online community by supporting RIAA-sponsored legislation on copyrights. It's possible this is a canny political attempt to balance the books a bit. Then again, he's a decent guy with 80% support in a state that's 33% Republican. Even in the minority, he's got a lot of clout. On this issue he'll probably get bi-partisan support, so it's likely this bill will, in some form, eventualy become law.
Besides, anyone high on Dick Cheney's hate list can't be all bad.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Are most if not nearly all perps of this this non US based? Last time I looked, the scammers were mostly from Nigeria right?
Of course, whether they will become involved or not is subject to debate.
Apparently Patrick Leahy is ignoring just how easy it is to move phishing opperations off shore. This looks more like a means to keep Leahy in the news rather than an effective crime-fighting law. In the horse and buggy days people learned not to walk right behind a horse unless willing to get kicked. When automobiles came out everyone learned to look both ways before crossing the street. As any new technology appears, a new set of safety rules comes with it, and each individual needs to learn the new rules. Many institutions are busy educating their users and now law is needed to force them to do this as it is already in their best interest.
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.
How many of you have actually traced down an IP address to find its origin? I know I'm not the only one. The first thing you find out is that the IP address is registered in Latin America or some other part of the world where we have no jurisdiction. The second thing you find out is that there is no way to do anything about their perceived illegal activities. I say perceived, because it may be un-legislated activity where they come from.
I say all of this because I don't think there's a single thing we can do to prevent those outside our country from doing this over and over and over again.
Practically useless, if you ask me.
Now accepting PayPal donations!
Now I understand why they wanted to railroad the controversial Computer Implemented Inventions directive during the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries!.
Hey, if somebody patents phishing as a business method, we'll be able to SLAPP all phishers for patent infringment!
Isn't there already a law that can be applied? Doesn't this basically amount to fraud or something? I think the biggest problem with Phishing is that it's a little hard to track down who is doing it. If you know who's doing it, you can easily arrest them. The problem is, is that mostly these phishers try to remain anonymous, and probably don't have their operations set up in the US.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
And also people who try to ensure interoperability of bank sites with "non-standard" browsers.
Don't laugh... it did actually happen!
Say no to software patents.
I say, leave the phishers alone. Maybe if the stupid people who give up their personal information, account IDs and passwords at the slightest provocation get fleeced often enough, they'll stop using the internet entirely-- thus increasing the collective IQ of the remaining internet users by a few points.
AOL dropping Usenet and finally bringing September of 1993 to an end was just the first step in returning the internet to the clueful.
Let's get the naive idiots off the net and back in front of the Three Card Monte tables where they belong, thus freeing up more bandwidth for us to discuss who was the better captain, Picard or Kirk.
What's the catch?
"Life has improved immeasurably since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." - Hunter S. Thompson
The sooner people accept responsibility for their own lives and their own personal information, the sooner people realise that with every Bill or Law that gets passed, the more they hand over the controls of their lives to the nanny state.
If the stupid people can't be bothered to protect their private information, if they can't simply delete emails they don't 100% trust the source of, if they can't invest in a paper shredder, if they believe all those glossy adverts about the security of their chosen operating system, then more fool them.
But please don't let us smart people also lose our personal liberties as a result of their stupidity.
No phishing scam has ever got me and they never will.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
This bill stops Bad Guys® from stealing the inexperienced users' life savings before they actually steal anyone's money.
Theft and fraud are already illegal. Who says that this law will do anything against phishers? The reason why phishing thrives is not because it is legal, but because it's hard to investigate and/or police just can't be bothered.
It does not outlaw building any website, just those designed with the intent and purpose to steal your bank password.
How do you prove intent? And what is the exact wording of the bill? If the intent is truly to steal and defraud, we've already got laws. We don't need any laws either forbidding to "carry weapons with intents of threatening peasants to give up their wallets". Mugging is already forbidden, and anything such a hypothecal law might achieve is inconvenience the butcher who brings a new knife to his shop...
A Luxembourgish Linux user got threats from a bank because he featured a look-alike login page on his Website. Purpose of that login page: strip an obnoxious browser check. But that's not how the bank tried to spin it.
Say no to software patents.
I don't get some of these phishing guys. Just got this in my inbox. Sure, there are some phishes that look believable but are the phishers really as stupid as the people that click on them? Would anyone who'd create a brain-dead phish like this one actually be afraid of jail time and/or a fine?
--
Subject: E-gold secutity patchHBhdGNo
Dear E-gold user, we receive many complaints concerning unsunctioned taking the money
off the balance of our users recently, thus we earnestly ask you to install the
following service-pack onto your Personal Computer.
- This innovation blocks all known Trojans which let take the money off your account
without your consent. We earnestly ask you to install this service-pack in order
to keep your money safe and sound.
- In case of the lost of your money, E-gold *DOES NOT* bear any responsibility if the
service-pack had not been installed on your computer before.
- The installation archivated file of the service-pack is attached to this letter.
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.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
What you mean I didn't have to validate my citibank account ????
Who is citibank anyway ?
Surely we will be safe with all these new laws to protect us.
(sarcasm)
My other first post is car post.
The Nigerian scam is based in Nigeria. [Strangely enough]
But a lot of the fake websites for bank logins are only hosted outside the US.
The domain names and holders are located in the US. Just like most spammers are based in the US but use servers hosted in other countries.
I do not think that it matters if a person commiting a crime in the US is based in another country.
IANAL, but what if I hired a hit man to kill someone in the US while living in Germany?
Could I get away with it?
I think that you just have to have enough proof of a crime being commited in the US and then issue an international warrant for arrest and extradition.
The nature of the internet being borderless, at least for now, makes it interesting how the law will be applied in such cases.
But I am far more concerned that laws like this could be abused to restrict free speach online.
I hope EFF and others are picking over this to make sure that it is not be the case.
watashi wa bengoshi dewa arimasen!
Small theives have laws against them. Big theives have laws that regulate them. Really big theives have laws for them.
Nuclear disaster fine: $60,000
Phishing fine: $250,000
It's cheaper to poison people with radiation and then take their credit card #'s then it is to trick them into giving you their credit card #'s.
stuff |
I think, to be quite honest, it takes the cake to criticise a law you haven't read and have no reason to believe is overbroad for being overbroad or badly worded. Yeah, it might be. Likewise the law on murder might be so overbroad that you can be prosecuted under it for eating beef. But that's not the case, and there's no reason, at this stage, to believe the anti-phishing law is overbroad either. Criticise it when it's actually got something in it to criticise.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Does this mean phishing is perfectly legal in the U.S. until specific legislation is passed against it?
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
Not that many people watched the Bassmaster's Cup anyway.
The Peanut Gallery, Ubergeek, Biblically Sober
NCAAbbs.com: Thousands of fans, Hundreds of teams, Just one place
I think it's fasctinating how "hacker" terminology has entered the mainstream, making it all the way up to the highest levels of government. Granted, the bill in question is dealing with a highly technical topic, but still I'm amazed that the acronym junkies in the Capitol basement didn't come up with a more governmentesque term for phishing.
So far, we've got Spam, Phishing, anybody recall other techno-terms that have made it into the government lexicon?
Presumably, therefore, credit card fraud in the future will not only require the obtaining of a credit card by fraudulent means but also some kind of hardware hack to use a cloned card.
Does that mean there could be a new crime of "phish and chipping"?
I'll get my coat...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
How is the US Goverment going to press charges when its occuring out of its jurisdiction?
Just my 2c...
- Think for yourself, question authority.-
I'm not sure if the bigger trial has finished for those other news people who are refusing to give up their sources names.. if not then it's up to that higher court to decide.
Take a look at the HTML that describes the form, it submits directly to the bank's website.
(Also, it only asks for a username, not for a password.)
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Wait a minute...so was I wrong in helping that Nigerian king transferring his 3 billion dollars to my account?.....shite....
The Supreme Court overturns very few laws. Congress passes plenty of laws. You have no idea what you're talking about, and should stop wasting everyone's time by posting such stupid messages.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
So I express an opinion within several minutes of other people who express a similar opinion, and that's "redundant." Twice. Got it.
Evil is the money of root.
Anti-phishing Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
.
.
S 472 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 472
To criminalize Internet scams involving fraudulently obtaining personal information, commonly known as phishing
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 28, 2005
Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To criminalize Internet scams involving fraudulently obtaining personal information, commonly known as phishing
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anti-phishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) American society is increasingly dependent on the Internet for communications, entertainment, commerce, and banking.
(2) For the Internet to reach its full potential in these and other respects, it must continue to be a trustworthy medium. This means, for example, that Internet users should be able to trust the stated origin of Internet communications and the stated destination of Internet hyperlinks.
(3) Internet users are increasingly subjected to scams based on misleading or false communications that trick the user into sending money, or trick the user into revealing enough information to enable various forms of identify theft that result in financial loss.
(4) One class of such scams, called `phishing' , uses false e-mail return addresses, stolen graphics, stylistic imitation, misleading or disguised hyperlinks, so-called `social engineering', and other artifices to trick users into revealing personally identifiable information. After obtaining this information, the `phisher' then uses the information to create unlawful identification documents and/or to unlawfully obtain money or property.
(5) These crimes victimize not only the individuals whose information is stolen, but the entire online community, including millions of people who rely on the integrity of the Internet's system of addresses and hyperlinks.
SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
(a) In General- Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1351. Internet fraud
`(a) Website- Whoever knowingly, with the intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal or State crime of fraud or identity theft--
`(1) creates or procures the creation of a website or domain name that represents itself as a legitimate online business, without the authority or approval of the registered owner of the actual website or domain name of the legitimate online business; and
`(2) uses that website or domain name to induce, request, ask, or solicit any person to transmit, submit, or provide any means of identification to another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned up to 5 years, or both.
`(b) Messenger- Whoever knowingly, with the intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal or State crime of fraud or identity theft sends any electronic mail message that--
`(1) falsely represents itself as being sent by a legitimate online business;
`(2) includes an Internet information location tool that refers or links users to an online location on the World Wide Web that falsely purports to belong to or be associated with such legitimate online business; and
`(3) induces, requests, asks, or solicits a recipient of the electronic mail message directly or indirectly to provide, submit, or relate any means of identification to another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned up to 5 years, or both.
`(c) Definitions- In
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
There is an occasional phishing-like variation where the boys from Lagos want your bank details to try and clean out the account, but the normal MO is to ask you to send money to them.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Is Slashdot planning on ever fixing the flag? It's been missing a red stripe forever.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
great now do something about those 419 scammers and maybe you'll put a small dent in online fraud. support 419eaters.com if you haven't already stopped by. These guys are doing a great job reversing the scam on these nigerian fraudsters. Some funny stories in the forum as well
I ran across a phishing site on a client's system while cleaning it up. The HOSTS file had 6 entries in it, redirecting any requests for 5 British banks and one Brazilan banco, to a IP at EV1.net. I busted my ass in a effort to get EV1.net's support team and administrative suits to pull the IP, but all I got was canned replies: "Forward the information to the abuse department". So I did so.
Two weeks passed, and EV1.net did not take any action whatsoever. So, I sent the report to the big Brit banks, which included The Bank of England, Barclays, and the legendary Lloyds. I got immediate replies, personal ones, NOT canned, that they would immediately take legal action agianst the offending CSP.
I checked the IP shortly after receiving the replies and got a DNS error.
It seems to me that EV1.net, which is based in Houston, has merc tendencies when it comes to site hosting.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Funding training for law enforcement so that they know how to pursue and prosecute these people under the laws they're already breaking instead? Or possibly establishing a single federal agency that would serve as a single point of contact for all Internet crime?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is low-life criminal behavior with clear malicious intent. 5 years and $250,000 is not enough for this kind of scum.
A community-oriented lyrics site
Similarly, law enforcement get confessions sometimes on the basis of misrepresenting what they know or what they can do. And, of course, when they go undercover.
Seems to me these are all variations on a similar theme. If it is to be made illegal for certain forms (on the internet) and for certain people (phishers), it should be illegal for all other forms and people as well. Since undercover police and fbi work will never be outlawed, I think this bill should not be allowed either.
I have an idea - lets protect the data. Give people privacy rights in their own data under certain circumstances. Let us start with the SSN, for example, let's rename it the PTIN (Personal Tax Identification Number), since that is what it is, and pass a federal statute that limits it's use for tax purposes (which the social security tax is), and disallow any business, school, or other party to ask for it unless they have a valid reason (as in they need to report taxable income on a person).
This will do wonders at shutting down all the filipino and chinese phishing sites I've seen.
One thing to watch out for though is that this law might be abused by those claiming against parody sites. A parody site would have a similar look+feel (or heck, perhaps just a similar URL), but obviously a different focus/content. Now if there were a login option on the parody site, the primary site might be able to claim they were phishing for usernames/passwords...
Just this past week I received the same phishing email (fake Key Bank login) 5 days in a row. I was surprised the site was able to stay up for so long. Who does one report this type of thing to? the FBI? the Secret Service? the FCC?? There needs to be some sort of clear statement on this from the government.
when you mock legislation saying it is useless, consider what people said when the republicans passed the XIII, XIV and XV amendments. They didnt have teeth at the time but how often do you hear about black citizens, blacks right to vote or even equal protection these days?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Interesting article about a growing anti-phishing industry. They note strange temporal patterns, IPs that read official sites, but dont log in. They use "honeypot" accounts to capture phishers.
Isn't this just fraud? Don't existing laws cover this?
I'm all for prosecuting these types of folks, but creating more laws equates to spending more taxpayer $$.
> The nature of the internet being borderless, at least for now, makes it interesting how the law will be applied in such cases.
:)
The law, at least as far as I understand what was described in the article, has to do with this sequence of events:
- Phisher builds website purporting to be US bank / US company, but is obviously not
- Phisher site captures sensitive customer information purported to be from that US bank / US company
- Since the victims of that crime are alleged to be customers of US bank / US company, that means the US bank / company can sue whoever it was, wherever they live in the world, since that is against the law of the land where that company is located. (the US.)
I think it's a good first step, but surely there must be international law dealing with international fraud that doesn't need to be tampered with to take these unscrupulous idiots to court over it. I have a feeling that international law may have much higher thresholds (ie: theft over $10,000 or something like that) which might make the international law route less appealing to the likes of CitiBank / Washington Mutual.
The faster they shut these idiots down the better, though, so law / bills are not really what I would go for. But hey: whatever works.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
Most of the time, the perps are organized crime from all over the planet. That some of the scams actually reside in Nigeria is both a coincidence and part of the plan -- the perps lure you there to make the transaction, and then up the "buy-in" price in person. Of course, by that time, you've already spent thousands to get there, you're in a strange land far from home with no protections -- might as well follow through with the deal and get out as fast as possible, eh?
See Wikipedia's Advance Fee Fraud webpage for more info.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
> Assuming it works and is enforceable, of course.
I second that notion. Right now, I can count four unsecured wireless access points available in my domestic complex, with the manufacturer's default password still intact. Some of them have a Static IPs. All of them let me set a DMZ of my choice. What is to prevent me from telling the wireless AP that my computer should be DMZ by default? What is to prevent me from running a faux Ebay/PayPal/WaMu site from my neighbour's now-hijacked connection? Law Enforcement personnel would be hard pressed to get search warrants covering *every* resident in the complex, not to mention that the presence of vast sub-basements for our gym, racquetball court, and maintenance tunnels leave plenty of nooks and crannies to physically place the server without fear of accidental discovery.
Solomon Chang
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
"Maaaaan, this music sucks!"
Congress passes plenty of laws.
OK. I'll bite. I went to congress.gov and listed all the laws our current Congress (109th) has passed since they are passing plenty of laws. Man, it is a huge list - a whole 2 laws!
Law 109-1: To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami.
Law 109-2: A bill to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members and defendants, and for other purposes.
I agree that Congress votes all the time. It seems that every time I buzz past CSpan, there's a vote going on. But, those votes are not for laws. They are for all kinds of other things that Congress likes to do.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
... just like the CAN-SPAM act got rid of anonymous and deceptive spam.
Legislation is one thing, enforcement is another. It's good when new legislation doesn't attempt to duplicate existing legislation.
But when dealing with criminals (and there's pretty much no other use for phishing), the sheer number of extra laws broken doesn't matter once that number is at least 1.
So you're saying, that if someone is driving five times over the limit, and doesn't crash or kill anyone, then it should be completely legal?... Do you realise what sort of carnage it would cause
Hmm...they didn't crash or kill anyone and you claim carnage?
how many people would be killed, if drink-driving was legalised? Are you saying we should let countless people be killed just so people have the right to drive drunk?
Oh of course. Because if it was legal, suddenly EVERYONE would start driving drunk. They'd ignore all the evidence that they'll likely injury someone (including themselves). People on their own have no interest in their self preservation and of course are total assholes to everyone else, who gives a fuck right? Is that what you really think?
Are you saying we should let countless people be killed just so people have the right to drive drunk?
The flip side is that, should you actually kill someone for drunk driving, you'd be locked up for life. Contrast with the current laws, which doesn' really deter the people its meant to deter.
As for the new phishing law, if someone puts up a fake-website to collect people's details for the purpose of defrauding them, stealing their life-savings or getting them into untold debt, how can any sane person have any objection to it being an imprisonable offence?
They've broken other laws already. You do realize there is a difference between murder and attempted murder right? Two parts of determining charges are what you intended to do, and what you actually did do.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
My arguement is that its always possible to say some action MAY cause someone else harm. My problem with that is that it leads to just about anyone being able to be punished for almost anything. Ya it sucks for the people losing thier life savings, but they aren't powerless either. Yo act as if the criminals phish that thier victims MUST fall prey to them? Do you purposely walk through a dangerous park at night just because you think you should? A reasonable person wouldn't, and if you're doing banking on the computer, I think it reasonable that you education yourself about the risks so you can mitigate them.
Get a clue dumbass; you can have a few random criminals or you can have an oppressive police state. Either way there's going to be some small group of people making life miserable for the rest of us. I guess the question is do you want to be free or not while thats going on.
Actually, most of the votes are related to legislation or rulemaking. It does take a lot of votes before a bill turns into a law. Didn't you ever see those old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons?
For example, I'm not aware of any attempted assault statutes. If I attempt to punch you in the face, trip, fall, hurt myself, and leave, I'm not on the hook for a crime. If I actually do hit you, it's assault.
So to me it sounds like that's what theya re doing here, making phishing, which is the attempt to do a number of crimes, a crime.
- Phisher builds website purporting to be US bank / US company, but is obviously not
This was illegally before the bill. It's has a name. It's called "fraud," as in felony, as in prison, extra large anus time.
The issue is in enforcement, not law.
C//
But here in Arizona murder 2 carries a minimum sentence of 10 years to life (maximum of 22 to life). Murder 1 is life no parole, or the needle depending on the circumstances. That would be quite a bit more than this statute proposes.
Also realise they say "up to" 5 years. What that means is that 5 years is the statutory maximum. So you cannot be sentenced to more than 5 years for a single offence. Now realisticly, most peopel will get less. Laws are delibratly designed with leeway. For a given class of offence there is a range of sentences a person can be given. That allows the judge to consider the circumstances of a case. Also, part of a sentence can be served on probation (ie instead of being sentenced to three years in prison someone could be sentenced to a year in prison and 2 of probation) .
So people should be able to take large stacks of explosives on passenger flights along with an assault weapon (as long as it can fit in the storage bin) since they haven't actually caused someone else harm. They MAY cause harm, but if they do you can then punish them (in their next life I guess).
(3) Internet users are increasingly subjected to scams based on misleading or false communications that trick the user into sending money, or trick the user into revealing enough information to enable various forms of identify theft that result in financial loss.
That can easily be re-written as:
American citizens are increasingly subjected to scams based on misleading or false communications and advertising that trick the consumer into buying ("hype"), or revealing personal information that gives corporations an unfair advantage to manipulate them in the future ("membership cards"), resulting in financial loss.
Why doesn't Senator Leahy do something about that?
Americans are defrauded every day, in broad daylight and even in national media, by corporate profiteers and even their own government which can't come clean about their motives. In 2003, for instance, the Clorox Company had a national TV campaign intended to mislead consumers into thinking that ONLY their brand of 5% sodium hypochlorite solution is capable of killing germs.
Where was Senator Leahy's heroic legislative effort then, to pre-emptively prevent the Clorox Company from defrauding consumers in advance of the actual fraudulent act?
Ideally yes, because other passengers would be armed as well. See, you don't need to worry about someone threatening you if you can defend yourself properly. But it seems that people don't see the value in being able to defend themselves, they'd rather let some inept third party do so...then complain when someone slips through 'security.'
Of course if you want to transport explosives there are safer ways to do so.
How does the other passengers being armed prevent a suicide bomber from detonating the plastic exposives he is wrapped in?
They shoot him before detonates it of course.
But then he hasn't actually done anything wrong.
So they are killing him for something he MAY do. How is that any different from making drink driving illegal because of what a drunk driver MAY do?
Purposely about to push a button to detonate explosives in a group of people is different then trying to get home with impared senses. Or do you think drivers get drunk with the purpose of harming someone?
It doesn't take a lot of time to push a button. Are people really fast enough to kill you before you do? Can they really tell the difference between you trying to turn off your mobile phone, or turn on your laptop, and detonating a bomb?
What if the bomb is set to automatically detonate when it gets out of range of some radio broadcast?
Giving the police the power to prevent someone from driving while drunk by taking them to jail instead of letting them drive home and possibly kill someone, is something the public has decided is worth while.
Would you agree though that in your airplane scenario that a resonable person would conclude the person is trying to blow up the plane?
Do you think a reasonable person believes a drunk gets into the car to try and kill someone?
There's the distinction. In your scenario, you have a plane load of people, a guy with explosives strapped to him, and both getting onto a vehical with hundreds of pounds of explosive fuel.
Then you have the drunk, senses impaired, but very likely not out to kill anyone and just wants to get home.
Our system wasn't setup to give the public whatever it wants; quite the contrary, its to slow down the publics influence on changes made to the government. The public might also insist on cameres in everyones TV so that the police can see everyone and stop almost all crime. Sometimes the public is stupid and needs to be protected from themselves.
The problem with the logic of locking someone up before they do anything is that you can build a case to say that someone the government doesn't like was going to do this...after all, look at x, y, and z. Its not very hard to paint a person in a bad light for even minor things..especially when the media over exaggerates the details. Thats the dnager of drunk driving (and checkpoint) laws.
Why does it matter what a reasonable person would conclude? Surely the second amendment means I can carry a hand grenade whenever I choose without having to strangers shoot me just because they happen to catch the same plane?
If a reasonable person would conclude that the driver who almost crashed into me is drunk and will almost certainly crash into someone else before they get home, can I shoot them to protect the public?
I'm providing an example of a situation in which it is illegal to do something (take explosives onto a passenger plane) because of something you may do (blow up the plane) but haven't actually done yet and may well not do.
As always it's a cost versus benefits analysis.
In the plane case there isn't much benefit in letting someone take explosives on board, stuff can be transported by other means. There's the freedom issues, society is more free if you can do so. The costs are clear enough, it makes the job of a suicide bomber reasonably easy
In the drink driving case there are more benefits, it allows people to get home from the pub easily, and so on. The costs are reasonably clear too, the chances of having an accident are increased which decreases the safety of everyone else.
How the costs and benefits stack up against each other is the hard bit of course. And people disagree, some people want safety at all costs, others want freedom at all costs. Then of course people disagree on what freedom is in the first place...
Letting the government lock people up because they might do something is a bad thing if it is completely general. If the police can throw you in jail because they think you might rob a bank in a few years time, then clearly it's time to find a new country.
Drink driving is not like that, it's just another law that reduces your freedoms but it's still something you have to do - they can't throw you in jail because they think you might drink drive tomorrow.
Almost all driving rules are like that. You can't run a red light, not because it's a bad thing in itself but because doing so puts other people in danger. Whether things like drink driving should be criminal offences or just driving ofences is another matter.
Why does it matter what a reasonable person would conclude?
Because our laws are based on the conclusions of reasonable people? You know, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and all. Remember, a reasonable belief is one based on reason, not some empty faith. Do you want laws based on whatever people think is right, instead of what is known to be right?
Surely the second amendment means I can carry a hand grenade whenever I choose without having to strangers shoot me just because they happen to catch the same plane?
A reasonable person would point out that using a hand grendade for self defense on a plane is counter productive. Since air marshals may carry guns onto planes a gun would be a reasonable self defense choice.
If a reasonable person would conclude that the driver who almost crashed into me is drunk and will almost certainly crash into someone else before they get home, can I shoot them to protect the public?
Perhaps shoot out the tire. Deadly force needs to be used carefully; the drunks intent is not to kill you or even to try and cause you harm (although by acting carelessly he may). Given that, I think a non-lethal way to stop him would be more appropriate, don't you?
I'm providing an example of a situation in which it is illegal to do something (take explosives onto a passenger plane) because of something you may do (blow up the plane) but haven't actually done yet and may well not do.
No, I think you were trying to raise fear of terrorism to justify your point. After all, you did stipulate that said explosives carrier had them strapped to his body, didn't you?
How does the other passengers being armed prevent a suicide bomber from detonating the plastic exposives he is wrapped in?
Ahh yes, you did. You're right of course, who needs the consitution, we are at war with terrorists!!
As always it's a cost versus benefits analysis.
And it seems that the cost is always understated.
In the plane case there isn't much benefit in letting someone take explosives on board, stuff can be transported by other means.
I agree. You put a terrorist on a plane were people on said plane could defend themselves. The only answer that i could give was shoot him. You probably realized the corner you were in, and then went off a ridiculous tanget (well i have all these bombs on my body but that's just how i transport them).
In the drink driving case there are more benefits, it allows people to get home from the pub easily, and so on. The costs are reasonably clear too, the chances of having an accident are increased which decreases the safety of everyone else.
Really? A drunk driver is more dangerous then a terrorist on a plane? Please, explain.
The costs aren't reasonablly clear to me, because your conclusion is false. The only people in danger are the ones how are driving on the roads the drunk will be using, or those people walking along said roads. Thus, the number of people actually in danger drops significatanly. As I sit here right now, I am in zero danger of being killed by a drunk driver.
The costs are much higher also than many think; the police can setup a road block on any road at any time and say they are looking for drunk drivers. They now get to search every car that goes through their checkpoint.
How the costs and benefits stack up against each other is the hard bit of course. And people disagree, some people want safety at all costs, others want freedom at all costs. Then of course people disagree on what freedom is in the first place...
My point is that this country is supposed to be heavy on the freedom side, so you understand why I don't want to move toward the safety safe. If people disagree on what freedom is, I suggest they read what our founding fathers wrote. Or at least look in the dictionary.
Unfortunately this will do little...
Phishing even works (still) via snail mail-- a couple around here were just taken by the Nigerian Scam letter for $1700.00
I couldn't imagine that there were people actually taken by that nonsense-- until it was on the front page of the local paper.
So the right to bear arms is just for self defense?
I can't have a hand grenade because other people think that's overkill? Because I want to carry my lucky hand grenade I should get shot by strangers who feel a bit uncomfortable about it?
Ahh yes, you did. You're right of course, who needs the consitution, we are at war with terrorists!!
Huh?
I'm arguing that it makes sense not allow someone with explosives to fly on a passenger plane.
You're arguing that's fine since the other passenger will just shoot them on sight anyway.
Make it a closer analogy then.
I want to carry my freshly brewed nitroglycerine on my weekend trip to visit grandma in Florida. I'm not a terrorist. I have no intent to hurt anyone, let alone blow them up. So it's fine for me to take a few jars in my carry-on?
> so was I wrong in helping that Nigerian king transferring his 3 billion dollars to my account?..
Not if you still had $3bil a year later... transferred to another account.