Email Bomber Faces Retrial

An anonymous reader writes "A UK teenager who was cleared last year of launching a denial-of-service attack now faces a retrial. Judges have ruled that crashing a server with five million emails probably isn't permitted under the law. With NASA hacker Gary McKinnon vowing to fight on after losing his extradition fight yesterday, it's been a busy few days for the UK courts."

Comments

What is british spam like, anyway?

[Orrin Bloquy]

T/\lly H0! Av01d y0ur ch3m15t's f0r ch33p laudanum!

nothing to do

[Mydron]

it's been a busy few days for the UK courts

Yes, I'm sure they had nothing to do before these guys came along.

Re:nothing to do

[icydog]

You must be one of those ignorant Americans. Don't you know that the UK only ever has two types of criminals? Those who hack into US military servers and those who blow up servers with emails?

Re:Uh huh

[heinousjay]

Shhh. Here on Slashdot we like to pretend that the world revolves around the twin pillars of technology and socialism.

named for being 18

[Kaenneth]

Why can they now name him?

I thought the general principle under which juvinile records are sealed is to protect someone from being punished for life for a childhood mistake.

Re:named for being 18

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I thought the general principle under which juvinile records are sealed is to protect someone from being punished for life for a childhood mistake.

Juviniles enjoy enourmous privilage under the law. They are effectively exempt from all but the most grevious of crimes. They will often literally have to kill one, possibly two people before they are given a serious sentance. Even then, the killings will have to be in cold blood, not in a fracas or the like, and the victims will probably have to be "innocents" of some kind rather than society's persona non grata.

To answer you question, if he were put on trial as a juvinile, he may have stood trial, and might even be convicted, but his sentance would be extremely lienient. It's probable he would have faced a small fine and perhaps a week or two of community service, if that.

However, having been visited by the wonderous Majority Fairy at the stroke of midnight on his 18th birthday, his juvinile privilages, exemptions, and get out of jail free cards have been revoked along with, presumably; his sexual innocence, mental incompetance and intolerance for alcohol. He is now fair game for the full weight of the law to be set on his shoulders as an example to all. A five year sentance is not out of the question, a step up from five weeks visting old folks homes to be sure.

Re:named for being 18

[ScouseMouse]

I dunno about the US, but the age after which you are considered fully responsible for your actions and can be go to jail (Although usually a young offenders institute) in the UK is 14, not 18.

Ah. Chinese spam.

[Orrin Bloquy]

So that explains why twenty minutes later I'm deleting spam again.

Double Jeopardy

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I thought the European Commission on Human Rights protected against double jeopardy. And no, Alex, I won't take Brussels for $200.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Lewisham]

In the UK, you can be retried for the same offence if there is "new and compelling evidence" (usually DNA samples), or if the case was never fully closed, as here. The CPS appealed the case after the ruling, saying that the magistrate read the law wrongly, which sends it up the chain for review. If High Court had said, "Nah, it was a fair call", then the case would be closed and he could no longer be tried again. However, the High Court has sent it back for further review. IANAL so I don't know why the High Court itself doesn't make the decision, and I don't know what happens if the magistrate decides the same way again.

Such stuff happens infrequently, but is sometimes reported on the news.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Lewisham]

Wikipedia helps here.

Re:Uh huh

[linvir]

I would have gone with 'technology' and 'crazy rambling' myself. See, we're not socialist, we're just really, really scared of lots of people, companies and organizations who happen to be right-wingers.

The good thing about extradition to the US...

[spiritraveller]

At least you know if you win the first trial, they don't get to do it over.

Re:The good thing about extradition to the US...

[Adam9]

Unless you're an "enemy combatant." The constitution doesn't cover them.

Re:The good thing about extradition to the US...

[spiritraveller]

Why should they get to do it all over again with a financial punishment and a lower standard of proof?

"They" don't. The criminal case is "the state" or "the people" against the defendant. The civil case is "the families of ron goldman and nicole simpson" against the defendant. Those families didn't get to decide whether the case was prosecuted criminally. They can't force the state to seek restitution for them. Instead, they have to seek it for themselves.

What "different purpose" does that serve?

It serves to compensate people for a loss that another person has caused to them. The criminal case serves the public's desire for retribution against someone who has violated our rules.

If someone steals your car and wrecks it, they can be prosecuted by the state, regardless of whether you want them to be. Either way, you still have the right to sue them for the financial loss they have caused.

Re:The good thing about extradition to the US...

[evanism]

which are the very rules *some* nasty countries choose to ignore, like the Nazi's in WW2....

What if?

[Zaphod2016]

I was working on a new cron tab the other day. It had been one of those 20-hour days, so I was already well-past "bobo mode" when I started. After a half an hour, I began to wonder where the hell all my confirmation emails were going....(er duh).

I wasn't "spamming", I was setting up on a new server and tired. Luckily, the default sendto was a null addy, but *what if*? What if one day I accidentally run a cron tab, and mail bomb the shit out of some poor shmoe?

Don't get me wrong: if I *did* ever do something so stupid, I would expect a civil lawsuit, and I would expect to lose. But is this really a criminal offense?

Re:What if?

[John Hasler]

> If you put up a porch poorly, and it falls and someone is injured,
> then you were negligent and it indeed can be a criminal offense.

Only if the prosecution can show intent or criminal recklessness.

> As always the punishment should fit the crime, so a few hundred
> error messages (assuming high volume) that don't cost anyone
> probably wouldn't result in jail time.

The mistake postulated by the OP would not be a crime no matter how many messages were sent. No intent.

Re:What if?

[iminplaya]

I don't see why running a server should be any different.

Because it didn't fall from the rack and injure anybody.

what the hell

[tehwebguy]

they can just have a retrial like that?

man that is scary, i mean across the pond we have some seriously scary laws (esp since the patriot act) but if any case could just be re-tried because the gov thought maybe they were wrong i'd be terrified.

Re:what the hell

[myxiplx]

Errr... wtf?!!

It's not a case of a re-trial purely because the government think they're wrong. They appealed and a higher court looked at the case and said "Yup, you may have a point there", and sent it back to the lower court for re-trial. That same higher court could just have easily have said "Nope, they interpreted the law correctly, case closed.".

Re:what the hell

[Shimbo]

they can just have a retrial like that?

They can appeal against a poor reading of the law in the lower court. I don't it find it particularly scary that someone who is incorrectly acquitted on technical grounds can face a retrial, if a higher court so orders.