UK Hackers Face Antisocial Behaviour Orders

ukhackster writes "The UK government has proposed that suspected cybercriminals could be banned from the Internet or have their PCs seized, even if they've not been convicted. These so-called Asbos have typically been used against teenage hoodlums or small-time crooks, but now they're gunning for organised criminals." From the article: "Asbos give the courts almost unlimited powers when imposing conditions on the person receiving the order. Under the Home Office proposals, the courts would have almost unlimited discretion to impose the order if they believe it probable that a suspect had 'acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime.' In a civil court, hearsay is admissible evidence, and the burden of proof is lighter than criminal courts."

Comments

Unbelieveable

[voice_of_all_reason]

even if they've not been convicted.

Re:Unbelieveable

[MosesJones]

Not to defend ASBOs, which are being used like candy rather than as a last ditch effort to restrain individuals (the worst bit is that if you violate the ASBO you can go to jail, which is very harsh). But are we really that suprised that a goverment has introduced legislation that enables "soft evidence" to be introduced and be used to curtail what someone is doing? The purpose of an ASBO is for the majority to be able to stop a minority doing something it doesn't like, not nice, not pretty.

But hell over with Mr Blair's favourite friend in Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law and can come from much less evidential grounds than the ASBOs and people are trying to avoid basic decency provisions such as the Geneva convention.

ASBOs... sad yes, unbelieveable? Certainly not.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Bogtha]

Perhaps if you are comparing this to crimes where people get sent to jail, yes. But nobody is going to jail here, the comparison isn't appropriate. For instance, you don't have to get somebody convicted to get a restraining order against them either, but nobody complains about their civil rights being infringed there, do they? Think of ASBOs as restraining orders on behalf of the community. They aren't great, but they aren't the catastrophe you immediately assume.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Atzanteol]

Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law

Not anymore...

Re:Unbelieveable

[voice_of_all_reason]

But hell over with Mr Blair's favourite friend in Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law and can come from much less evidential grounds than the ASBOs and people are trying to avoid basic decency provisions such as the Geneva convention.

To be perfectly blunt, people care differently about "those people" being opressed than when it begins happening to their own.

Re:Unbelieveable

[jo42]

Guilty before due process. What a load of shite.

Re:Unbelieveable

[voice_of_all_reason]

Think of ASBOs as restraining orders on behalf of the community. They aren't great, but they aren't the catastrophe you immediately assume.

The siezure of private property and imposing of arbitrary restrictions (that will lead to jail if violated) is not a catastrophe?

Re:Unbelieveable

[Vexorian]

Imagine if restraining orders prohibited the people from even using any form of transport that could eventually take them close to the person that asked for the order, instead of just not being able to get close to him/her

Re:Unbelieveable

[penguinblotter]

The government is also said to be developing eye-drops that will cure this antisocial behaviour. Looking forward to those...

Re:Unbelieveable

[RexRhino]

People go to jail for violating Anti-Social Behavior Orders. Anti-Social Behavior Orders aren't like throwing a person into jail without trial, they are like making a law without a democratic process that applies to only certain people.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Anonymous Coward]

San Min Chu-i,
Our aim shall be:
To found, a free land,
World peace, be our stand.
Lead on, comrades,
Vanguards ye are.
Hold fast your aim,
By sun and star.
Be earnest and brave,
Your country to save,
One heart, one soul,
One mind, one goal.

UK should better follow the example of China.

...

Err...

Re:Unbelieveable

[RexRhino]

Don't try to blame ASBOs on Mr. Bush. He may be a facist, but the left are just as in love with these kinds of social engineering bullshit.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nasty use of doublespeak there. Most people reading "arbitrary" will understand it in the sense of "on a whim", which is totally false. There's a less well-known meaning of the word which means that a judge has decided something for a particular case, rather than it being mandated by a particular law. You are correct in the latter respect, but it's nowhere near as bad as "on a whim", not by a long shot.

Please don't use ambiguous words where the incorrect interpretation is pejorative. If you did this on purpose, it's an extremely dishonest debating tactic.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a restaining order?

Re:Unbelieveable

[plague3106]

For instance, you don't have to get somebody convicted to get a restraining order against them either, but nobody complains about their civil rights being infringed there, do they?

But you do have to prove that there is probable cause that said person would harm you. You just drop into a judges office and get one because you don't like them. Also, restraining orders are useless anyway, so what really is the point?

Re:Unbelieveable

[mOdQuArK!]

They're still there, and will be for a while. I'll beleive that things have changed when these guys have gone through real court hearings & have been convicted or released.

I can't think of _anyone_ in this Administration who has willingly paid more than lip service to the other two branches of the government (much less the public).

Re:Unbelieveable

[just_another_sean]

But hell over with Mr Blair's favourite friend in Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law and can come from much less evidential grounds than the ASBOs

Yes but the U.S. Supreme just found that illegal. It took them way too long to do it, but it shouldn't (too pessimistic to say won't) happen anymore. I only hope that this completely unfair addition to their laws gets overturned sooner in the UK.

Re:Unbelieveable

[loraksus]

But hell over with Mr Blair's favourite friend in Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law and can come from much less evidential grounds than the ASBOs and people are trying to avoid basic decency provisions such as the Geneva convention.

Please, your government had internment without trial for a number of years and they suspend the use of jury trials when they feel like it.

Re:Unbelieveable

['nother poster]

He uses a word absolutly correctly and you claim it's dishonest? That is one hell of a stretch. My mind is simply boggled trying to wrap itself around that little logic gem.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Anonymous Coward]

He uses a word absolutly correctly and you claim it's dishonest?

If there's a very good chance that the word will be misinterpreted, yes. If I went around telling people that a heterosexual person was gay, do you think it would be dishonest? Even if they were gay in the "happy, joyful" sense?

Re:Unbelieveable

[RexRhino]

Restraining orders aren't for arbitrary behavior... A restraining order is for only one specific thing: to keep a person away from another person. But even in that limited form restraining orders are given out frivilously and very much abused (for example, the woman who was stalking David Letterman got a restraining order that banned any communication from David Letterman, including TV broadcasts. Of course the order wasn't enforced, but David Letterman was technically breaking the wording of a legal restraining order by doing his television show. A lot of woman use restraining orders against men when they are ordered by courts to give joint custody to their husbands. Restraining orders are given out without a second thought, where as to actually win exclusive custody in a family court requires real evidence and legal procedure. A friend of mine was on a jury duty, where a woman got a restraining order against a man, then called him up telling him to call her back, and then when he called her back she had him arrested for violating the restraining order.). So even something as simple as a restraining order can be abused.

However, an Anti-Social Behavior Order, being almost limitless, has vast more potential for abuse. For example, people have gotten Anti-Social Behavior Orders against neighbors from letting their children play in the yard. For a kid, not being able to play outside is practicly a form of torture. Kids everyone go outside, and they yell and scream and have fun, and you live in a sick society if kids playing in the back yard can be deemed "anti-social".

Or, playing loud music or making loud sounds can be deemed anti-social. Now, I have a feeling that "loud music" will not be the local Anglican church choir, or it's church bells... but it may include a punk rock band playing in their basement, or a muslim call to prayers. It is free reign for people to enforce their personal tast through the courts and criminal system.

I have even heard that a guy got an ASBO for "leering". Apparently he liked to sit on his porch and relax and watch people walk by. But I guess people don't like to be looked at, so the guy had to learn that his right to use his sense of sight ends where someone else's right not to feel even the remotest bit uncomfortable begins!

Re:Unbelieveable

[Ironsides]

I only hope that this completely unfair addition to their laws gets overturned sooner in the UK.

There isn't any equivalent to the US Bill of Rights in the UK. The only people that can overturn this is probably the same MPs who voted for it in the first place. So it's probably going to be around for a good long time.

Re:Unbelieveable

['nother poster]

Nope. As long as you used it in context correctly. There really is no other word to use in the original post. As far as I know there is no synonym for for an arbitrary ruling by a judge.

Re:Unbelieveable

[gowen]

If you a subject to an asbo you don't like, you absolutely have a right of appeal. Just like other summary judgements, like speeding and parking fine.

You may not like the use of them, but ASBO target are not denied due process.

Re:Unbelieveable

[voice_of_all_reason]

Can you elaborate further? The website only says that you can appeal -- it doesn't go into detail about the actual process.

In the US at least, you have the absolute right to a hearing (trial w/o a jury) for even parking/speeding tickets if you choose to excercise it. Most don't because it means losing a day's pay, and the cops know that. However, you usually get off if there's a mistake in the police documentation (especially wrong licence #, car make/model) or if the policeman decides not to show up that day (he'll get paid, but he's gotta wait around just like you).

Re:Unbelieveable

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you are being disingenuous. This is Slashdot, not Internet Law Review, and there's no way you don't see the problem with deliberately choosing technical terms that are certain to be misunderstood by your lay audience. This is just like those who argue with a straight face that "evolution is only a theory".

Re:Unbelieveable

[voice_of_all_reason]

MP is such an interesting acronym for this discussion. Across the "pond" it means "military police"

Re:Unbelieveable

[nx]

The European Court of Human Rights might be able to overturn laws that are incompatible with ECHR. Articles 9 and 10 comes to mind (freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression, respectively). They seem to have a history of somewhat sensible rulings.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Anonymous Coward]

However, an Anti-Social Behavior Order, being almost limitless, has vast more potential for abuse. For example, people have gotten Anti-Social Behavior Orders against neighbors from letting their children play in the yard. For a kid, not being able to play outside is practicly a form of torture.

Kids can allowed to scream all they want; inside a soundproof booth. The one single, basic, fundamental rule every child, and every citizen MUST learn is that you do NOT infringe the rights of others. Ever. Period. It's the only thing that makes society work.

After that, do whatever you want. It's pretty much that simple. If you don't know if something is illegal, find out. If it's not, go ahead. If it is, don't do it. If you disagree with the law, change it. If you can't, in a democracy, it's because other people's rights outnumber yours. Deal with it.

Kids everyone go outside, and they yell and scream and have fun, and you live in a sick society if kids playing in the back yard can be deemed "anti-social"

You live in a sick society if you think children should be taught to violate the rights of their fellow citizens. They should be learning respect for society and others, not that their own desires matter more than those of the people around them. It's not "torture" to learn self-discipline: it's called "becoming a human being", and the reason youth crime rates are rising is because children aren't learning any respect, and aren't being punished when they break the rules.

Children should only ever scream in exactly one kind of situation: a physical emergency in which an immediate response is required. I learned that when I was FIVE, in a rural community with distant neighbours. If I can manage that kind of "torture", kids in an urban environment can learn to be human, too. There's no wonder that kids get abducted with no one to help them: when they can scream all the time, all the false alarms drown out the real emergencies.

Re:Unbelieveable

['nother poster]

No, I'm quite serious. But after reading your post you seem to be guilty of the same thing that you accuse others of. Your usage of the word disingenuous was correct because I believe you were questioning my sincerity not my honesty, but it is probably misconstrued by many to mean dishonest or lying when it actually means insincere or calculating in use. If some people do not know the definitions of words, or certain contextual meanings, that is not the fault of the poster who does and uses them correctly.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Marcus Green]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_Int ernment

Re:Unbelieveable

[RexRhino]

What happened with screaming children before Anti-Social Behavior Orders? What did people in the UK do before they could call in the SWAT team to shut-up the neighbors children? You do realize that going to court to threaten people with the police is a lot less social than talking to your neighbor, explaining the situation, and asking them to do something about it.

Did it ever occure to you that maybe the reason for all this anti-social behavior is that government is replacing consentual social interaction with regimatation? Or that the ASBO could be themselves used to commit anti-social behavior (by harrassing other people with the power of the state).

I live in an urban enviornment, and I deal with loud noises all the time. That is just the drawbacks of living in an urban area. If there needs to be some sort of regulation on sound, it should be a law based on some strictly objective criteria (such as the decible level of noise). That way you make sure that the guy listening to his hip-hop records while having a BBQ doesn't get in trouble (because he is young and black and listens to rap music), while the old lady watching television at full volume next door with the windows gets a free ride (because no-one is going to file a ASBO against that sweet old lady).

One of the reasons for having the legal system is that it is supposed to treat everyone equally under the law... When random people can undemocraticly create arbitrary laws that only certain people must follow, you MUST understand the potential for discrimination and abuse!

Re:Unbelieveable

[myowntrueself]

Perhaps if you are comparing this to crimes where people get sent to jail, yes. But nobody is going to jail here, the comparison isn't appropriate.

You go to jail if you violate the ASBO.

Also, there is no limit nor guideline on the conditions that can be imposed by an ASBO.

All that is needed to put a troublemaker away is an ASBO that precludes them from raising their left hand above their waist and then wait...

Re:Unbelieveable

[gowen]

Basically the same. You get to take your case to a court higher than the one that made the order, and present any evidence that you've not done things you're being accused of, or why its a breach of your human rights to be prevented from continuing to do them. http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?aid=2691 (amusingly hacked).

Re:Unbelieveable

[geminidomino]

You sonofabitch... Here I am, my heart pounding, blood pressure skyrocketing, with palms and brow sweating in abject fear of the terrists, and what do you do?

You go and post something that suggests you realize that neither of the two groups of fuckheads has any respect for the concept of freedom.

The shock nearly killed me.

Re:Unbelieveable

[Garrett Fox]

Glad I live in a country with a constitution, even if it gets ignored sometimes. Englishmen, please, run while you can.

Re:Unbelieveable

[voice_of_all_reason]

England reminds me of that oft-copied homeless man sign

"need money for booze, but at least I 'aint bullshittin' you

not in the USA :-)

[networkBoy]

For the first time ever a new cyber law make me happy I'm in the US and not the UK!
FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US.

Still think all the geeks of the world need to unite and form a new country with fat pipes and takeout resteraunts every half mile.
-nB

Re:not in the USA :-)

[guruevi]

Did you mean fat tubes? We can take our internets with us.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Mikachu]

Since when has the US government been bound by its constitution? Patriot Act, anyone?

Re:not in the USA :-)

[MrSquirrel]

Let's move to Antarctica -- if everyone's against that (I know it's cold, but think of the overclocking you could do on stock air cooling!) we could always build a giant barge from old PC's (it would also be a functional beowulf cluser).

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

"For the first time ever a new cyber law make me happy I'm in the US and not the UK!
FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US."

Just as demanding from an convicted persons to walk around with a board around his/her neck stating his conviction seems to be legal in the US, but not in the UK (or in any other civilized country for that matter :-) )

In other words : you seem to forget that this kind of, by you condoned, behaviour has, in your country, allready been going on for ages.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[LiquidCoooled]

While we are making our "raft" why don't we also make a virus and drug called "snow crash"?

Re:not in the USA :-)

[sepluv]

Not that our (UK) laws aren't just as crazy (some less so; some more so) than yours, but when was the last time your government took any notice of that antiquated document which I think they've made clear they don't think applies to this 21st century cyber world, which, if you believe Bush, is full of "un-American" "hackers" [sic] and "terrorists" [sic] out to do unspecified really Bad Stuff? In fact, I think many recent presidents have made breaking the constitution their top challenge in office (as, I would assume, they've got nothing better to do).

On topic, although I think, in principal, a simple way to punish anti-social behaviour is useful in some situations (though not much as the police should be prosecuting people for actual crimes), the ASBO is clearly totally disproportianate and does not go near offering a fair trial. The real problem is the police being too lazy to discover crime, find evidence and bring prosecutions. Instead they go after what are usually easy targets with punishments which are passed on the nod without a trial.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

"FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US."

You sure? Seems it falls a little under mental health laws, which in many countries, such laws are or used to be regularly abused.

Someone with far more knowledge on this matter should be commenting, but hasn't it historically been normal in the US for people suspected of mental illness to be locked up with little or no review for long periods of time? In fact, we have a rather long history of doing such a thing with little or no review and oversight.

This doesn't happen (much) today, due to a lot of mental health reform. But that doesn't stop police officers from threatening such action when one doth protest too much about their ineptitude in a particular situation.[1] Or from cases coming up about someone undergoing "review" because some non-health professional decided to inconvenience them because their authority was questioned.[2]

[1] This has happened to me twice. This is one area of the law in my state (Pennsylvania) where I haven't gotten around to reading up on--been busy reading up on other fun things (like how they can submit a "guily" plea for certain offenses in your absence and how the local magistrate system works (or rather, doesn't work)).

[2] Which is one of many reasons why I never care when media reports that such and such alleged criminal had a history of mental illness, given the stigma attached to such illness in this country. (And quite frankly, by the statistics, near everyone has such an issue at one time or another; evidence that one sought help shouldn't be indicative or suggesting fault.)

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if Antartica isn't a nerd paradise, there is no such place on Earth :
* penguins everywhere
* no real people, except some weather geek scientists
* everything is frozen, so you can store years of food, just have to heat it in the microwave

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Jerk City Troll]

a new country with fat pipes

They're tubes, damnit, and yes, we would not want them to get full.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[JoloK]

Ummm... Have you missed all of the unconstitutional laws on the books here at home?

Re:not in the USA :-)

[BodhiCat]

FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US.

And this would stop the current administration?

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Atzanteol]

but when was the last time your government took any notice of that antiquated document which I think they've made clear they don't think applies to this 21st century

Very recently. It's up to the courts to determine that and while they do act a little more slowly than the legislature they do get around to it.

http://www.hutchnews.com/news/regional/stories/git mo071206.shtml

Re:not in the USA :-)

[DarkSarin]

IIRC, mental illness can only be used to forcibly restrain someone under the following conditions:
1) a competent medical/psychiatric professional declares someone to have a mental ilness;
2) that person be judged by competent professionals to be a danger to themself or others.

This is for the long term. A police officer may temporarily detain someone to determine their mental health and their danger, but if a mental health professional says they are mentally stable OR not a threat to themself or others, then there is no grounds for continued restraint. This advice must be sought immediately--not days or weeks down the road, but within a few hours (overnight at worst).

I am not a medical doctor, nor a lawyer, but i do know more than a little about this topic: I worked for about 1 year as a Mental Health Assistant in a long-term mental health care facility, and I am pursuing a degree in non-clinical psychology (that year convinced me that it wasn't much fun to work with mentally unstable folks every day--the patients weren't too bad though). I feel bad for you if an officer has abused this law, and I hope everything works out.

FWIW, you should get yourself a lawyer--even if it is only a court-appointed guy. He has to help you, and you can force that by asking endless questions. Eventually he'll tell you what you need to know even if he turns out to be a jerk. Best case scenario you actually get a good public defender. They are, from what I've heard, something of a rare thing, but they do exist.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[teh kurisu]

Bugger that, I want a nuclear bomb that detonates when I die.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[hometoast]

FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US.

Yes, much like Spector's proposed bill.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Gunny101]

This is why I am happy to be in Canada. We don't have to put up with any of this kind of bull$#!+ (yet anyway). This is also why I moved all my co-located servers into Canada, even though it costs more for bandwidth.

Re:not in the USA :-)

[Garrett Fox]

I like it -- the US has never formally claimed "its" slice, so there's a big unclaimed area... But what about floating colonies instead? Better weather. =)

For the British-impaired

[Rob T Firefly]

Wikipedia's article on ASBOs provides interesting reading on the subject. The article is a bit of a mess, but there is decent info in it, and the links list at the end is well worth perusing. These things are used against everything from vandals and thieves to hat-wearers.

Re:For the British-impaired

[vain gloria]

Wikipedia's article on ASBOs provides interesting reading on the subject. The article is a bit of a mess, but there is decent info in it, and the links list at the end is well worth perusing. These things are used against everything from vandals and thieves to hat-wearers.

That's suspected hat-wearers. No point taking risks, eh?

Re:For the British-impaired

[identity0]

If you think he's kidding about the hat-wearers, check out some BBC articles on clothing issues they have over there:

Brothers banned from wearing hoodies
Mall bans hoodies, baseball caps
(Conservative leader) Cameron to make 'hoodie' appeal
Archbishop woos hoodie generation - this one has a funny picture of an archbishop giving a sermon in a hoodie.

It sounds totally bizarre to me in the US, but apparently hoodies (the sweatshirts with hoods) have become culturally associated with gangs or something, and (conservative?) people in the UK want a crackdown on them.

It supposedly has something to do with being used to hide criminal's faces from security cameras. So a pervasive surveilance state led to criminalization of something that was not a problem before, to accomadate the needs of surveilance.... A nice downward spiral.

It's still totally bizarre to see something that is not even close to being a political issue over here treated as if it's a major cultural/crime problem. Next time a friend from the UK comes over, I must remember to take them fox hunting in hoodies :)

Re:For the British-impaired

[aj50]

I believe the crackdown on hoodies was due to people using them to appear more intimidating.

In other news

[Mikachu]

In other news, the UK government is proposing that acquitted bank robbers be banned from banks.

Re:In other news

[Amouth]

how about we jsut ban people from money.. unless you have a LLC tax id you arn't alowed to have cash.. wait.. that is a diffrent country...

Re:In other news

[darcling]

I also heard that an acquitted rapist is to be castrated and then banned from ever seeing a woman again.

Re:In other news

[ozmanjusri]

banned from ever seeing a woman again.

That's a good thing. We need more Slashdotters.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean that the politicians who are accused, but not yet convicted, of a crime will be banned from being involved in politics the rest of thier life? Me thinks it's only fair...

Tough call...

[gasmonso]

The part about banning thmem from computers even if not convicted is just nuts. However, as with gun crimes, convicted felons can't legally buy/use guns. That makes sense because there is no real need to use one in the first place. However, computers are a different challenge... they are somewhat necessary in todays society, especially if that's your career field. How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer? This will only get more interesting as time passes.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Tough call...

[andrewman327]

"How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?"

Ask Kevin Mitnick.

Re:Tough call...

[voice_of_all_reason]

That makes sense because there is no real need to use one in the first place.

In that case we'd better let the military know. Think of how much they could save in the budget if they didn't have to buy all those guns. Also, all police departments should destroy their weapons, as there is no real need to have them in the first place.

Re:Tough call...

[crunch_ca]

Indeed. Does that mean they can't have a phone? What about an iPod? What about a programmable calculator...

Re:Tough call...

[Albio]

Can they still use the ATM? The self-checkout at supermarkets? Library electronic catalogues?

Re:Tough call...

[b0s0z0ku]

Indeed. Does that mean they can't have a phone? What about an iPod? What about a programmable calculator...

Or a car... even in carbureted cars, the carburetor is technically a mechanical analog computer.

-b.

Re:Tough call...

[DaveV1.0]

However, computers are a different challenge... they are somewhat necessary in todays society

For general purpose purpose computers, they are not necessary for a person private life.. They are only need for work, and many jobs don't require computers.

How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?

The same way you tell a cab driver or truck driver that their license is being revoked. "Looks like you need a new career."

It does not matter if one is a doctor, lawyer, banker, program, or truck driver. If one abuses or misuses the knowledge and skills needed for one's career there is no reason not to ban one from practicing said knowledge and skills regardless of one's career.

Re:Tough call...

[soft_guy]

In Mitnick's case, the crime had very little to do with computers and far more to do with lying about his identity over the phone.

Re:Tough call...

[Joebert]

How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?

The same way you tell a convicted sex offender they can't work at a school anymore.

Re:Tough call...

[Darundal]

Well, telling a programmer he can't use a computer because he commited a crime is the same as telling a doctor he can't legally practice because he commited a crime or malpractice.

Re:Tough call...

[sepluv]

...but obviously that is a computer crime as phone lines are digital now (and routed through computers). By lying he was misusing the phone company's computers and unlawfully trespassing on those computers with lies!

Hopefully those computers were made in somewhere were they don't have the rule of law so he can be extradited to that country (that the victim computers were nationals of) and punished severely...oh wait...he was already in the US anyway...never mind.

He also endangered national security, cracked into the Pentagon and co-operated with and glorified "terrorists" by lying on the telephone causing the NSA's computers to store an incorrect record of what he was talkng about (which might later be needed to take out dangerous un-American "terrorists").

Re:Tough call...

[Ignignot]

No this is not the same, because a doctor needs a license to practice medicine, just like a lawyer or an engineer needs to have a license for their professions. A license is an extra right granted by the government, which means it can be taken away for much less than your normal rights. You don't need a license to use a computer, so they are actually restricting what people in the US would consider an inalienable right. This would require a trial and conviction in our legal system.

Re:Tough call...

[Alchemar]

The need to use a gun, is when your goverment starts passing laws that restrict the rights of people suspected of a crime instead of convicted. That is why the US constitution protects the rights to own a gun. It should be a last resort after all political channels have failed, but there may be a real need to use one some day.

Re:Tough call...

[andrewman327]

But didn't his punishment include not using a computer?

Re:Tough call...

['nother poster]

"What you in for mate?"

"I got 5 years for violating my ASBO"

"Oh, whadya do?"

"The wankers caught me with an abacus"

Re:Tough call...

[just_another_sean]

At least Kevin was actually convicted first.

Re:Tough call...

[AtomicBomb]

How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?

Actually much worse than that.... That guy cannot even work for the local supermarket or warehouse as computer is used everywhere.

It makes sense to ban a convicted bank teller who collaborated with a bank robber (e.g. by supplying internal operation memos) from working for any financial institutes. Similarly, I don't mind making a convicted cracker suffer by affecting his chance to work as a programmer/ computer security professional. But, banning computer usage is just too much.

Re:Tough call...

[andy_shepard]

It's more like telling him he can't take an Advil when he has a headache because he committed malpractice.

Re:Tough call...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The same way you tell a convicted sex offender they can't work at a school anymore.

That'll teach you to moon a cop!

Re:Tough call...

[Anonymous Coward]

just like you can tell a person who has a DUI they can't drive. it's similar to having a driver's license suspended..cars are also pretty necessary these days.

Re:Tough call...

[91degrees]

sigh.

This is the problem with discussing the law on slashdot. Poeple always seem to mistake a brief summary with the law.

Actual legal texts have a long list of definitioins at the start, which describe exactly what is and isn't a computer. This si why a typical act is severaldozen pages long even though it appears to only do a few simple things.

Re:Tough call...

[JASegler]

Actually Mitnick was held without bail or trial for four years.
During this pre-plea bargain time he was under court order to not touch anything more complex than a calculator.

Of course the government did learn their lesson. Now when they have someone they don't like but can't prove it in court... Well they just throw them in gitmo.

Without any communication to the outside world or even access to a lawyer people tend to just forget about them.

-Jerry

Re:Tough call...

[topham]

yeah, when you get your lawyer to ask for delay after delay, as well as refuse to comply with requests which would either exonerate, or convict you; really, is it their fault he spent so much time in jail an innocent man?

he wasn't innocent, he knew it and he tried to push any trial off until the charges were dropped.

Re:Tough call...

[Anonymous Coward]

just a slight extension, the use of a gun also extends to opposing over-restriction of the rights of those convicted of a crime. Just because someone did something that the law says that they're not allowed to do does NOT mean that they become some unperson that you can do anything to do and it's all ok & above board because THEY BROKE THE LAW

Re:Tough call...

[Alchemar]

Agreed - I had a friend kick off a jury for telling them he didn't see the words "except a convicted felon" near the term "right to bare arms" I was a little disturbed with this, because I feel that a jury has the right to rule against a law as well as against a suspect, but if you kick everyone off that might disagree your weighting the system in your favor.

Power lies in its users hands

[andrewman327]

This seems like one of those policies with unlimited potential for abuse. Sometimes such policies work and sometimes they become draconian measures. It all depends on the restraint of those who apply the law. TFA suggests that this law is bound to be abused on a large scale basis to perform an end-run around the established legal system. It will be interesting to see how this is applied and to whom.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

This seems like one of those policies with unlimited potential for abuse.

Potential? This law would criminalize the act of being suspected in a crime. There is no grey line being responsible use an abuse.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

And there's the problem. ASBOs, while a total infringement of any sort of due pocess seem to have worked reasonably well They're only imposed on people where it's quite obvious that they are behaving anti-socially - This is usually things like vandalism, and harrasment - and at the moment, the people targetted are clearly acting anti-socially. As a result, they're really quite popular.

There is the potential for abuse, but the general public seems fairly oblivious to this.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[s13g3]

It all depends on the restraint of those who apply the law.

You expect RESTRAINT from judges?

I for one welcome our new totalitarian legal dictator overlords...

Oh wait, they aren't new... *%^^*%$&^%$!!!

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[jkauzlar]

I saw an interesting sig yesterday here on /. -- "You have the right not be harassed by police, I have the right not to get blown up." Fair enough. These sort of laws scare the hell out of me, but then again, we need assurance against criminals of all sorts. Most of these laws aren't abused. I'm not defending Bush's policies, but so far as we know, he hasn't abused his executive spying 'privileges' yet (although it appears our gitmo-style prisons *have* been abused). Congress, when enacting such measures, needs to put tough, and I mean *tough*, laws, as well as checks and balances, on enforcement for when they abuse such privileges, as well as strict guidelines for what constitutes abuse. That way, gitmo-style disasters won't happen again and law enforcement will be held responsible for their mistakes.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

So you're saying the majority if Britain has decided breaking the law (due process, or whatever its called there) is necessary to punish people who... are... breaking the law?

If police and judges are not abiding by the rules of society, why do they expect criminals to?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[kcbnac]

Friend of mine got sued by the FBI, for downloading mp3s, under the Patriot Act. Ended up getting a nice settlement check out of that one...never did hear all the details, should find them out...

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[soft_guy]

If police and judges are not abiding by the rules of society, why do they expect criminals to?

They do the same thing in the US with drug cases. They can seize all kinds of property merely be saying it might have drugs on/in it. They can bypass due process. It has been that way since the 80s. It is the reason I have no respect for the US government.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[bhima]

can't help myself:

So you're saying the majority of America has decided breaking the law (due process, or whatever its called there) is necessary to punish people who... are... breaking the law?

If police and judges and administration are not abiding by the rules of society, why do they expect criminals to?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[arachnoprobe]

"You have the right not be harassed by police,

True.

I have the right not to get blown up."

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. We all have the right of freedom, but no right for security. I'm not for terrorism or against the police, but freedom has to come first.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[It'sYerMam]

Eh, what? Your freedom includes the right to blow me up? Your freedoms stop where my rights start.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[blueboy31]

They do the same thing in the US with drug cases. They can seize all kinds of property merely be saying it might have drugs on/in it.

I don't like this either. The US gov't can also 'suspect' you of becoming a terrorist after they see you using encrypted protocols on the internet. Then they can proceed to take you away and lock you up indefinitely, without the right to an attorney or any other rights for that matter. Call me paranoid, but as someone who uses encryption on a regular basis, the thought keeps me up at night. My question is, where can you go to escape this scenario? The US is supposed to be one of the "free-est" countries in the world. Any suggestions?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

['nother poster]

The RICO laws in the U.S. go back much further than the 1980's, that's just when the government started using them for simple possesion cases. I forget which city first started using RICO for that purpose, but it took off quickly. The courts have said that RICO is Constitutional because if you aren't convicted you can petition to get your property back, and that if the property has been disposed of you must be compensated. That said, I'm with you, it's bullshit pure and simple.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[arachnoprobe]

True - but that doesn't make it your right? Right for freedom as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[aardvarkjoe]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. We all have the right of freedom, but no right for security.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sure sounds like we have the right to not be blown up to me.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Elektroschock]

Let's don't forget the upcoming European IPRED2:

Article 3 Offences

Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences. ...

Article 7 Joint investigation teams

The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.

Article 8: Initiation of criminal proceedings

Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.

Here you find the list of responsible rapporteurs in parliament. If you think the formula infringement==crime is wrong it would be appropriate to take action now.

The source of IPRED2 is Jacqueline Minor from DG Internal Market, who also started the software patents directive project. Here she want to mess up criminal law of the member states.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
We have the right to life, but obviously not to live indefinitely. Where do you draw the line. One could argue that when we are born, we already have had our chance to live and are not necessarily entitled to any more life.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[plague3106]

Whether or not laws like this work is irrelevent. You are in effect being punished because you were supsected of a crime, which is ridiculous. This law, whenever applied, will be an abuse, regarless of the circumstances.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[TheRaven64]

No, the majority in Britain has decided that they trust judges - who are selected meritocratically and have strict codes of behaviour, violation of which will cost them their jobs - are better suited to deciding what is illegal than the elected politicians. I can't say I totally disagree with this, looking at our current crop of politicians...

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[orthogonal]

From the parent poster: It will be interesting to see how this is applied and to whom.

the courts would have almost unlimited discretion to impose the order if they believe it probable that a suspect had 'acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime'.

In all seriousness -- no, I'm not trolling here -- how soon until the UK's equivalent of the RIAA convinces a judge that non-Microsoft operating systems are used to "facilitate" circumventing DRM?

"We can't actually prove that the defendant^H^H^H respondent uses the linux operating system and perl to run DeCSS, but then, we don't have to prove anything. He has a DVD burner, Judge, and why wouldn't he be using Microsoft's DRM-ecumbered Media Player 10 unless he was up to no good?

All it takes is an overzealous RIAA-type organization (check) and a non-tech savvy judge (check).

You can no doubt come up with your own scenarios involving torrents ("but Judge, there's no legitimate use for torrent networks, except to distribute linux, and we know what that's used for"), encryption ("why would a private person use encryption, unless they had something to hide"), or even debuggers ("used to reverse-engineer and crack non-free software, Judge"). Not to mention network sniffers, disassemblers, and circuit testers.

And of course, real criminals will continue to break the law. All this will stamp out is any real innovation outside of corporate control.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[loraksus]

The USA has the exact same thing - even being arrested for a crime (not convicted, and even if your record is expunged) can/will prevent you from sitting as a juror.
Being arrested will get you your very own FBI file.
Being arrested for a felony will cause tons of problems if you decide to try and get secret or top secret clearance down the line.
Seizures of "drug money" (cars, houses, etc) without trial are an everyday occurence.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[plague3106]

The confusion is that people are using their right to live to strip other people of other rights. Your right to live does not in anyway outway might right to free speech, unreasonable searcher or to hold arms, for example.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

This law would criminalize the act of being suspected in a crime.

The UK must be taking a page from the United States then.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[andrewman327]

Like I said, it is all about how it is implemented. When I debated in high school, I had a card that said that 90% of policy is implementation. While it is possible that this law will break the camel's back and throw England into a totalitarian state, I personally doubt it. I do not believe that this will be used by every judge, but there will probably be times when it is applied too harshly.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[loraksus]

They're only imposed on people where it's quite obvious that they are behaving anti-socially

Riight.. They have never, ever, been abused. They'd never, for instance be used for fare dodgers, suicidal women or for a fucking cat.

Are there pink unicorns where you live or are you just an apologist cunt?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Ioldanach]

I'm not defending Bush's policies, but so far as we know, he hasn't abused his executive spying 'privileges' yet

That's part of the problem, 'as far as we know' is limited to what he's willing to allow investigators to see. He personally stonewalled the wiretapping investigation into oblivion. ( news story -- there are more examples but I can't find them right now )

Re:Power lies in its users hands

['nother poster]

That is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. One is the supreme law of the land(Ha ha), and the other isn't a legal document at all, just the U.S. giving Britain its walking papers.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

the brittish may be paranoid about this war that's going on.

and british law is a lot different from american law. siezing computers, possibly locking people up on suspect of commiting crimes would not be a first.

isn't that why the unitied states revolted against british rule (other than anger over taxes,) in the first place?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[just_another_sean]

even being arrested for a crime (not convicted, and even if your record is expunged) can/will prevent you from sitting as a juror.

Ah, so there's an upside!

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Um, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness? C'mon, blowing someone up is a clear violation of the most basic human right - the right to be left alone.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Tweekster]

Never being able to be a juror? where is the downside...
I have never ever known anyone to say "hey, I would like to be on a jury"

The FBI file isnt a big deal, hell my grandmother has an FBI file. Those archives have become so large and lacking any sort of detail they are pretty much useless. "hmm your file says you were born here, you got into trouble here, the rest of the post it note we have on you is a doodle of a house..not sure about the relevance there."

being arrested for a felony should cause a second look when getting top clearance, Why the hell were you arrested in the first place, what was going on that you were a suspect. Those are valid questions when attempting to get a high level of clearance.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[mathx]

ASBOs would be fine, the issue is the lack of public body oversight into them. If they want a lower-power and higher-volume court thats not necessary a full criminal tribunal system (costs, delays, complexity, etc), then *FORM ONE* an execute its mandate based on those criteria. I see no reason why there should not be a public non-governmental body not involved in making the decisions here.

(I can guess why - if it was a public body responsible for the results, politicians couldnt claim to be getting 'tough on crime' cuz they'd have no direct control over the body.)

The elite are just shoring up power for when the resource/environmental crunch comes... history bears this out.

-math

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[russotto]

Uhh, in what state has being arrested prevented you from sitting as a juror? You may be rejected during voir dire (as you can be for any number of reasons, or no reason), but you're not ineligible.

Having an FBI file doesn't mean anything nowadays. Probably anyone who has posted on slashdot has one...

I'm sure you're right being arrested for a felony can cause problems for getting a clearance. But getting a security clearance from the government is hardly on the same level as just plain using a PC or the Internet.

You're right about the drug money thing, it's disgusting and despicable and often seems aimed at ensuring the defendant doesn't have the resources to defend himself. But that's the only one similar to the orders proposed in the article.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing you can do and there's nowhere you can go, either. The rest of the world is on the same path.

Stop using encryption, if that's what keeps you awake at night, and learn to live without privacy. It's not like you can hang on it anyway.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[h4rm0ny]

Don't forget about the guy who got fined £80 for swearing. There was actually an even more offensive case of someone who called the security sensors on the London underground shit where a police officer heard him. He was arrested by six of them and forced to hand over £80. If you don't have it, they march you to a cash point. You can't refuse to pay (without facing being dragged off). Your only legal recourse is to go to court to try and prove your innocence later to get your money back.

Okay, these aren't the ASBO laws, but they've been brought in around the same time by the same people and work on the same lack-of-due-process priniciples. It's mostly a class thing and a establishing authority thing. If the police don't like your attitude or the way you dress or talk, they no longer have to put up with it. They can slap you back into line. Is your clothing offensive or anti-social, e.g. a hoodie or bear an anti-police/government message? That can be anti-social too.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

A page? Tony bLIAR is taking a lot more than a page, he's bent over taking it all the way up the ass from Bush & the NeoCons. Hemust really want a job with the Carlisle Group.

Democracy and rights are dead.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

Very insightful, though I beleive so for a much more practical and simple matter.

We have no right for security because it is impossible to guarantee it from the government's end. For example, we can say completely that "everyone has the absolute freedom to publish anything they desire", and actually make it happen. We don't, but it could be so.

The government cannot say "no one will ever get blown up by terrorists ever again" because it is outside their control.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[mathx]

You dont have the right to be provided with absolute guaranteed security. And thats what americans are asking for now, or being fooled and goaded into it, by their govt so that it might slip the noose around the populace ever tighter and just point at the 'terrorism' issue and shrug. "We're doing it for you! its what you asked for!" Considering the number of Soccer Moms blown up recently in middle america by terrorists, its obviously working! GO Bush! Its important to have control of the population and give the tools of authorit(y|arianism) to the police, cuz when the resource crunch/environmental disaster comes (or intensifies..), it's going to be hard for the stakeholders to maintain their lifestyles without a very strong arm of physical and legal force subject to their whims. -math

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

I think that's mainly because the DoI included the right to abolish the government when it became destructive regarding those ends (life, liberty, and property). Once the founding fathers were in charge, they probably thought they hadn't thought their cunning plan entirely through.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

The first one is for potential persistent fare dodgers, and since this hasn't actually been implemented, none of the recipients have been behaving anti-socially. However, persistent fare dodging is antisocial. Attention grabbing "suicide attempts" are also anti-social, and the third was imposed on the cat owner. The cat owner was behsaving antisocailly by allowing an overly agressive cat to roam free.

Are there pink unicorns where you live or are you just an apologist cunt?

If I was an apologist cunt, I would have suggested that ASBOs were a good idea. Instead I'll just say "But of course, there are obvious exceptions". I shouldn't have to say this, because the exceptions are obivous, but since you're an agressive pedantic git, it turns out I have to.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[loraksus]

Article about the incident in question

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

No, I don't think I am saying that.

We don't have a written constitution. The law is whatever the acts of parliament say it is. ASBOs are part of the law, and as such are ipso facto legal. There's a tradition of rights such as freedom of speech, due process and so on that politicians have generally respected, but these seem to have been rapidly eroded.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'm no fan of religion, but that jesus guy has the perfect response to this:

"Whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, so you have done to me"

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Having an FBI file doesn't mean anything nowadays. Probably anyone who has posted on slashdot has one...

That does it. I'm going to get a FOIA request on Anonymous Coward's file. That should be a doozy.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[andrewman327]

Yeah, Christ has some good stuff to say. Sadly this is the first time I have seen The Bible quoted on /.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[corbettw]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong [sic]. We all have the right of freedom, but no right for security. I'm not for terrorism or against the police, but freedom has to come first.

By that way of thinking, murder should be legal. Since you have no right to be safe in your person, afterall.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[tolan-b]

Article about the general movement away from basic principles of government

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[IAmTheDave]

being arrested for a felony should cause a second look when getting top clearance, Why the hell were you arrested in the first place, what was going on that you were a suspect. Those are valid questions when attempting to get a high level of clearance.

Call me an idealist, but if you're found innocent of a crime, that should be about it. Now yeah, the person may have covered it up well, but you're being subject to double jeopardy. I certainly understand concerns, but being arrested because my NAME is the same as a criminal may stop me from getting a clearance later is something of concern.

But my personal beliefs go further - like once your pennance to society is paid, you should be fully reinstated as a member of said society. Not being allowed to vote if you've ever been convicted of a felony, etc., is bullshit in my book. Either there is a debt to society that you can pay, or your crime is so great that there is no repayment (life w/o parole / death penalty) but these "in betweens" where once a criminal, always kinda sucks. Even if the evidence points to that trend...

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[IAmTheDave]

This is usually things like vandalism, and harrasment - and at the moment, the people targetted are clearly acting anti-socially. As a result, they're really quite popular.

This is the very definition of a slippery slope - because soon file sharing of any kind, lending a DVD to a friend, etc. will all be considered anti-social. So will music sampling, reading out loud, bypassing Windows Genuine Advantage, encrypting communications, etc., etc.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[IAmTheDave]

Eh, what? Your freedom includes the right to blow me up? Your freedoms stop where my rights start.

Rights are things which are granted as inherent to your existance as a human being. Laws are put in to place to determine those things which one cannot do, or to dictate the process of a particular action from beginning to completion.

Laws exist that say that he cannot blow you up - murder is a crime. The law states that he cannot blow you up. However, there exists no law on record that grants you any right to security. Granting such a right would require that protection be given, and the protecting party be held responsible should you still be blown up.

It may seem like a matter of word-play, but indeed the GP poster is correct - there is no law giving you any security.

The Constitution and BoR are set up to outline what the founding fathers believed the inherent rights of humans are. The Consitution itself is not exactly "law", but a guide-book for managing and creating law based around what are considered your inherent rights as a human being. That's why "outlawing" anything via ammendment is a bad idea, because law is not the job of the Constitution. Prohibition was appealed, and since then, as far as I know, ammendments outline rights assumed.

The SCOTUS uses the Constitution as a guideline when determining if laws passed indeed represent the rights assumed by the Constitution. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to live for any specified period of time or to be free of danger. Actually, the draft indeed assumes that you - accepting the rights granted you under the Constitution, will be willing to place yourself in harm's way to protect those rights for everyone else.

So it may scare you, but you have no right to be safe from being blown up.

Boom.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[yali]

Never being able to be a juror? where is the downside... I have never ever known anyone to say "hey, I would like to be on a jury"

Maybe, but if you are on the other side of things, you might care. If you are from some segment of society that is disproportionately likely to be arrested unfairly -- say because of your race or political activity -- that means that a jury is less likely to include people like you.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[aardvarkjoe]

You dont have the right to be provided with absolute guaranteed security.

Disregarding that a right to "guaranteed security" is very different than the right to live, you don't have the right to complete, absolute freedom of speech either. My objection was to the absolutely idiotic statement that we don't have any right to live. We do, and it is every bit as fundamental as our other rights.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[OriginalArlen]

What's this 'would'? ASBOs have been law for years ( 4 t 7 ). They've been very popular for local getting rid of antisocial neighbours, vandals, etc etc. Apparently.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[nemui-chan]

The reason? Why so narrow minded? i have TONS of reasons to have no respect for the US government. ;)

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Riight.. They have never, ever, been abused. They'd never, for instance be used for fare dodgers, suicidal women or for a fucking cat.

Fare dodgers are thieves. Theft is anti-social behaviour.

The "suicidal" woman was stopping traffic and consuming public funds by repeatly requiring rescue. She was grandstanding for the public, not trying to kill herself. If she wanted to die, all it would take is a quiet corner and a sharp knife. If she needed counselling, she had *three* previous attempts to find some before she finally got slapped with the ASBO. The woman wasn't suicidal: she was just enjoying the attention, at the expense of everyone else's happiness. That's textbook anti-social behaviour, and she engaged in it *four* times before she was finally stopped.

The cat was attacking passersby. Assault is anti-social behaviour. In my country, the cat would probably have been killed the first time it attacked someone; and definately the second time. It's a public health and safety issue: letting the thing run around loose while sedated is very generous. It's already hurt passersby.

So, where are the abuses of which you speak? The people charged with being anti-social were anti-social, and the things for which they were charged should be or already are crimes.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Bob Uhl]

The USA has the exact same thing - even being arrested for a crime (not convicted, and even if your record is expunged) can/will prevent you from sitting as a juror.

To be more accurate, anything may prevent one from sitting as juror, since both parties can dismiss a certain number of prospectives at will, and since jurors can be dismissed for cause as well. But believe it or not, it's not uncommon for those convicted of misdemeanors to sit on juries. They're jsut misdemeanors after all!

Being arrested will get you your very own FBI file.

I've never heard that, but it neither surprises nor worries me.

Being arrested for a felony will cause tons of problems if you decide to try and get secret or top secret clearance down the line.

Which is as it should be. Remember that felonies are those offences which once carried the death penalty; the state out of its mercy is allowing one to continue to live, thus one should expect certain hassles--e.g. felons can't own weapons or vote.

Seizures of "drug money" (cars, houses, etc) without trial are an everyday occurence.

Now there I agree with you that it's absurd. Property seizures without a proper conviction are a very worrisome development, and one which should be addressed ASAP. The 'drug war' is the source of far, far too many infringements on our liberties, and should be terminated ASAP.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Danse]

So, where are the abuses of which you speak? The people charged with being anti-social were anti-social, and the things for which they were charged should be or already are crimes.

The difference is that they don't have to prove that you actually committed an offense. If someone commits a crime, then they should prosecute, and if their case is good enough, convict them. If they can't do that, then they should leave them alone.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[jez9999]

I might well be being naive here, but isn't this almost repeating what copyright/trademark laws say? What's new?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Chowderbags]

Well, here are the countries that don't have extradition treaties with the US: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Ciskei, The Comors, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zaire, and Zimbabwe.

Out of those, there aren't many good ones. Perhaps you could find a small island in Micronesia and set up a satalite connection to the internet. That would also allow you to take the role of a criminal mastermind and carve out a mountain to use as your evil lair.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[bishop32x]

I think he's right

We all have the right of freedom, but no right for security. I'm not for terrorism or against the police, but freedom has to come first.

I believe not getting blown up falls under the word "Life" in "Life, Liberty and Property" in the declaration of independence. While I'm aware that it's not legally binding, I still think the principle holds. The goverment is charged with protecting the people lives, liberties and property, in that order. Just as you should be able to assume that you can say something in public, you should be able to assume that you will not be killed walking down the street, for whatever reason. Without the right to live all forms of Liberty become meeningless, becuase someone can just kill you for exercising that right.

The sticky part comes when these rights conflict, and I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a society to be able to decide what the correct balance is. Personally I believe that The People should never be deprived of their freedoms and people should have thier individual freedoms restricted at little as possible without a conviction.

It seems like the UK as a society is moving in a different direction, which while acceptable under the precepts of the declaration of independance, is the reason I'm never going to live there.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[bishop32x]

I've always assume that it was an ordered list; life then liberty and then finally property. It seems logical since you cannot have liberties if you're dead, nor can you really own property if the government can sieze it whenever they feel like it.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[jez9999]

the UK's equivalent of the RIAA

The British Pornographic Industry.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[FordPrfct]

Being arrested for a felony will cause tons of problems if you decide to try and get secret or top secret clearance down the line.

Which is as it should be. Remember that felonies are those offences which once carried the death penalty; the state out of its mercy is allowing one to continue to live, thus one should expect certain hassles--e.g. felons can't own weapons or vote.

I think you misunderstand. This was not talking about a felony conviction. This was talking about an arrest on suspicion of a felony, which was later cleared. Unless, of course, you believe that one should expect certain hassles with the rest of their life because somebody, somewhere, thought (incorrectly) that they *might* be responsible for a crime?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[arachnoprobe]

murder should be legal.

This is not about legal or illegal. It's about guaranteed (human) rights. If some one murders me and a) he is convicted b) it is illegal (should be) c) he should be punished (by the law)

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[plague3106]

That assumption is wrong; the fact that the revolutionaries were willing to die for freedom should be a pretty big hint. I think the notion is that its better to be dead than not be free; NH's slogan sums it up nicely 'Live free or die.' (Although I think they need to get back into the spirit of things).

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Seraphim1982]

Call me an idealist, but if you're found innocent of a crime, that should be about it.

Good for you. Now you just need to move to a place where people are found innocent of crimes and you'll be all set. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US justice system does not decide innocence, it decides guilt. Being found "not guilty" just means is that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[init100]

What's new?

Patent infringement has until now been a civil infringement handled in civil courts by way of lawsuits. If this passes, patent infringement will be a crime with prison time as potential sentence. Can you imagine how this will impact business? How about if software patents are sneaked in though some new directive, such as the community patent directive?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

Yeah. But it's only applied to a very small minority of genuine anti social people right now. I believe this guy had something to say on the matter but what does he know?

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[pete6677]

Uhuh, bullshit. The FBI does not sue people for downloading mp3s. The RIAA sues people for UPLOADING them. The Patriot Act has not yet been used for music prosecutions. Your friend also did not get any settlement check. Next time try harder, your bullshit is extremely transparent (or should I say watery).

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[kraut]

And since abolishing due process worked so well in the war on drugs, we should now use it in the war on copyright infringers?

Bah.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

You expect RESTRAINT from judges?

More so than from politicians. (Marginally at least).

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a straight lie. There are numerous instances of ASBOS being applied to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty. About 1 in 3 asbos applied to persons under 17 fall into this category.

We are now criminalising children with mental health problems and learning disabilities such as tourettes, autism and aspergers syndrome. I recall one autistic child served with an ASBO for 'constantly staring over the neighbours fence'. What is happening is that people like 91degrees are too lazy or incompetent to check the situation, and don't care about the sacrifice of principles of justice so long as the police are only coming for the most vulnerable in society. If he falls foul of the current police state he will receive a rude awakening.

There are numerous sites which raise these issues and provide references - here is one example: http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[loraksus]

GP here and I do recognize that a bit of investigation may be warranted in a clearance case (blackmail and all that), but with the current situation and backlog for clearances, a felony arrest will essentially disqualify you (at least 4 the ext 5 years or so)

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[operagost]

So what? Double jeopardy is prohibited by the constitution, so "not guilty" means not guilty-- permanently.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[loraksus]

*for the next* dammit, broken hand...

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[It'sYerMam]

From the Universal Bill of Rights, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Not to be on the offensive, since I'm no lawyer or ethicist or whatever, but that seems to be in direct contradiction to what you just said.

However, there exists no law on record that grants you any right to security. Granting such a right would require that protection be given, and the protecting party be held responsible should you still be blown up.

Surely the person held responsible is the person responsible for blowing you up? Take a look at article 9, noone shall be arrested randomly. There doesn't have to be a central authority stopping people from arresting you, and taking responsibility when they do; in ye olde tymes, we (presumably) still had such a right, even if it wasn't codified. Does this mean there had to be some town-mob-ombudsman/responsible person to whom you could complain if a mob arrested you for no reason? I don't think so.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

This is just a straight lie. There are numerous instances of ASBOS being applied to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty. About 1 in 3 asbos applied to persons under 17 fall into this category.

I never said they weren't.

. I recall one autistic child served with an ASBO for 'constantly staring over the neighbours fence'. People with aspergers are antisocial. It's one of the key symptoms.

What is happening is that people like 91degrees are too lazy or incompetent to check the situation, and don't care about the sacrifice of principles of justice so long as the police are only coming for the most vulnerable in society.

What makes you think I approve of these things? They are a total violation of basic principles of due process, and can easily be abused. This doesn't stop them from being popular, and in turn, being popular doesn't mean they're a good thing. As I said in my very first sentence on the matter; "there's the problem".

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Jherek Carnelian]

Take a look at article 9

Huh? There are only 7 articles in the US Constitution.

noone shall be arrested randomly. There doesn't have to be a central authority stopping people from arresting you, and taking responsibility when they do;

Presuming this is in the constitution somewhere (I searched on "arrest" and only found that congressmen can't be 'randomly arrested' while in session) it can only apply to government, i.e. the police. Just like freedom of speech only applies to the government, individuals are free to censor others on their own property.

LOL! I just figured it out. You were reading the JAPANESE constitution.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[It'sYerMam]

Where did I mention the US Constitution? If you take a look, the one document I did mention happened to be the Universal Bill of Rights.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Kjella]

Call me an idealist, but if you're found innocent of a crime, that should be about it. Now yeah, the person may have covered it up well, but you're being subject to double jeopardy. (...) But my personal beliefs go further - like once your pennance to society is paid, you should be fully reinstated as a member of said society.

Full members of society don't by default have top secret clearance. It's a special privilidge given to people who deserve that trust. "Not guilty" only says "Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", which is enough for the courts. But to get the clearance, you must prove you are trustworthy - you must prove your innocense.

Someone (a DA) thought they had enough evidence to bring you to court, and unless you've been completely cleared of the charges you're not trustable. They are sure as hell going to take that into consideration, just like the rest of your life. You can be disqualified for any number of reasons that are 100% legal activities - but are not compatible with that kind of clearance. That's neither single nor double jeopardy.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did I mention the US Constitution?

When you replied to and quoted from a posting that was explicitly talking about the US constitution and bill of rights, and laws in the USA -- not declarations with neither signatories nor any binding force.

If you take a look, the one document I did mention happened to be the Universal Bill of Rights.

Dillydoo for you. Still doesn't apply to arbitrary individuals and has about zero legal standing.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

I have never ever known anyone to say "hey, I would like to be on a jury"

I've heard that's actually a very effective way to snag one of those peremptory challenges, especially if you get really excited when the prosecution questions you. Act overly nice and eager to get on the jury and he'll think you have an axe to grind against "the man" and can't wait to play Hung Jury.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

Wow. That's a really good point I hadn't ever thought of.

//not sarcastic, I'm pleasantly surprised to be taken aback

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[conejito_andarin]

Ya know, reading the articles, I'm not that outraged. Fining people who don't pay for the Tube? OK. Using ABSO as a restraining order to keep a suicidal woman from jumping into rivers, dumb but OK. An aggressive cat? Incredibly stupid, yes, but I think the cat's civil rights have been preserved.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[conejito_andarin]

OK, ASBOs. Now I'll be flagged flamebait or something ...

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[zCyl]

Following your links, I came across this one of a teen given a court order to get drunk. That cracks me up. :)

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[shilly]

Oh bollocks. ASBOs have been abused by councils up and down the land, to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal. One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-15132 43,00.html

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Eivind]

There's a large difference between being *arrested* and accused of a felony, and being *convicted* of a felony.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Eivind]

The cat-story is amusing, but a poor example of abuse.

If someones cat completely unprovoked attacked me or my kids repeatedly I would expect the problem to be dealt with. A cat is a hobby. There exists no rigth to have hobbies that attack people on a public street. House-arrest for the cat actually sounds quite mild in this case. I'd have expected many judges to have ordered the animal put down.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[drsquare]

How are the police and judges breaking the law? The Anti-Social Behaviour Act was passed by Parliament in 2003, so ABSOs are entirely legal, and part of due process and the rules of society.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal.

That's the point of an ASBO.

One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.

Yes... there are a few examples of them being unfair. The fact that these are so rare is one of the problems with the system. If they were handed out to anyone and everyone, then they would rapidly lose their popularity with the public.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[shilly]

So rare? More than 7,000 ASBOs had been made by September 2005, nearly half of which were for juveniles. 35% of these children had been diagnosed with a mental disorder or had learning difficulties -- there are cases of kids with Tourette's being told not to swear! Fewer than 1% of applications for ASBOs were rejected by the courts.

What is certainly true is that it is whim and circumstance that will determine whether you receive an ASBO. The capricious nature of this "justice" is, as you say, one of the key problems with it.

What makes them popular is not that they are commonly used -- most people will have had no direct experience of them. What makes them popular is that they are "tough" (ie they are easy to impose and are sweeping in their scope) and they play fairly well in the right-wing press (although trying to satisfy the Mail on this is a fool's game).

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[AftanGustur]

Good for you. Now you just need to move to a place where people are found innocent of crimes and you'll be all set. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US justice system does not decide innocence, it decides guilt. Being found "not guilty" just means is that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.

In most civiliced countries, when you're found "not guilty", that verdict dees not limit your options in the future.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[voice_of_all_reason]

Apparently they're not, as the British slashdotters have pointed out. Due Process isn't codified, so it can be overruled by acts of parliment.

Sounds like over there, civil rights are "at her majesty's leisure"

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[mdwh2]

Does one currently need to be convicted of something for an ASBO? The most worrying thing here is that people can receive them without being convicted, and the level of evidence required is that required by civil courts, so the burden of proof is lighter than criminal courts.

Wikipedia says "Although these are civil orders, the behaviour complained of must be proved to the criminal standard", but I can't find any reference for that, and it's disputed in the Discussion page.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Lemmy Caution]

When did South Korea sign an extradition treaty with the US? I think Taiwan is, or at least was, a non-extraditor as well.

Anyway, submarine-lair-in-a-volcano works for me.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Lemmy Caution]

Now that I think of it, there's a bunch of countries that should be on that list but aren't... I really doubt Iran has an extradition treaty, or Cuba, or North Korea for that matter. But those countries have no official diplomatic relationship with the US of any sort...

I'm responding more out of fascination than pickiness.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[91degrees]

I think wikipedia is being ambiguous rather than incorrect.

My understanding is that very weak evidence can be used to apply an ASBO, but to actually punish for breach of an ASBO, requires proof of beyond reasonable doubt that the terms of the ASBO were breached.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[loraksus]

Even better, he was arrested one night while drunk and they let him go because he was complying with the asbo ;)

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that they don't have to prove that you actually committed an offense. If someone commits a crime, then they should prosecute, and if their case is good enough, convict them. If they can't do that, then they should leave them alone.

Why?

A judge still has to rule on guilt or innocence; the only difference with an ASBO is that the case is decided civilly (on preponderance of evidence), not criminally (beyond any reasonable doubt).

Frankly, if you're going to require the cost and expense of formally proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that someone is, indeed, a criminal, you should be allowed to execute them immediately after the trial. The law needs to have teeth, or it's a pointless farce.

If you can prove that someone is the obvious culprit, then it's reasonable to fine them in absence of any defense they can provide. If they can produce evidence that they're innocent, thenn, by all means, pay out compensatory damages for the troubles they've incurred; but they had better be able to explain their behaviour. You see, that would be justice...

Yes, it's possible that the guy with the smoking gun didn't shoot the victim. No, it's not proof. Yes, it's should be sufficient grounds to convict, but isn't... so criminals walk the streets unhindered, and the law abiding citizens suffer...

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Danse]

A judge still has to rule on guilt or innocence; the only difference with an ASBO is that the case is decided civilly (on preponderance of evidence), not criminally (beyond any reasonable doubt).

Not under the new proposed law they wouldn't. It's different than ASBOs.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[PastaLover]

Sorry but the article is about being suspected == crime. Your comment is about copyright infringement == crime. (after you've been convicted) I fail to see how this could be informative or even on-topic for this thread.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Elektroschock]

It is a severe difference!

a) civil law enforcement vs. criminal law

b) 'all infringements of an IPR' - Trips is worded different, it says criminal sanctions have to be there for PAtents and copyright. It does not say "infringement == crime". In reality criminal measures are hardly used. This would change.

Re:Power lies in its users hands

[Elektroschock]

In fact it is not about

suspected == crime

It was about low level enforcement action against suspected offenders. Probably nothing wrong with it.

IPRED2 is not about copyright infringement.

It is about all infringements of an intellectual property right.... under certain weak conditions. Madness because infringement != crime.

The missing link is anti-piracy action which results in strange applications of criminal law.

WTF?

[darcling]

Three words - W.T.F.?

Here are the key phrases that tell you this is a HORRIBLE IDEA:

1) "give the police and the courts sweeping new powers"
2) "impose the orders on individuals, even if they had not been convicted"
3) "proposals, if enforced, would give the police and courts "extensive powers" against --*suspected*-- hackers and spammers" (em by me)
4) "give the courts almost unlimited powers"
5) "the courts would have almost unlimited discretion to impose the order"
6) "Those suspected ... could also have computer equipment taken away by the police"

See all the uses of "sweeping" and "extensive" combined with power? Never a good thing.

However, there is a glimmer of hope:
"In the US, this legislation would not be constitutional," said Starnes.

"If the Home Office can show it can use these powers in a reasonable and prudent manner, then I'm in favour," Starnes added.

---Yeah, that will obviously happen, when are they not reasonable and prudent??

Re:WTF?

[joshier]

What I don't understand is the amount of people (if this does pass) that will be in jails.

Already, the UK jails are bursting.. they really are! Where do they expect them to go??

It seems like this is just a huge push for further corruption, which is such a strange thought at first, since the whole idea of this is to "remove corruption".. the fact of the matter is, there are crimes everywhere all the time in the UK - and when criminals come out of prison they never change, and sometimes they come out worse...

This will cause the opposite effect, and in my personal opinion, they want a mass population decrease.

Re:WTF?

[tgd]

I'm not sure "constitutional" really matters much here anymore.

Re:WTF?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Everyone here is missing the point. Asbos work and they work well, they're not abused yet and have mostly been used on complete assholes.

I'll give you an example, the village I grew up in got a new set of slides and swings in the park. Within a week the place was full of graffiti ("LOL COCK" type of things) and most the new equipment was trashed. No kids went there because you'd always find 15-20 year olds drunk and doing drugs. These would be the sort of people who get an Asbo, they're told to stay the hell out of the park and if they go into them they will have commited a crime.

Plus lets me honest here, the UK police force right now has bigger issues. They shot a guy in the head 8 times for "being a terrorist", when he was totally innocent and now they're getting done on Healthy and safety instead of murder charges they deserve. I'd say forget Asbos and start to worry about the big shit they are throwing around right now. I think I'd rather lose my PC in this country than get 8 holes in the head..

Re:WTF?

[soft_guy]

I'm not a UK citizen - never been there (and thanks to this new law I'll never visit!), but in the US the government has clearly proven that they can't use their existing power in a reasonable and prudent manner. In fact, they can't do much of anything right. It is pretty sad when the only difference between the two parties is that one will tax you to get lots of money so that they can waste it, while the other will borrow the same amount of money so they can waste it on slightly different things. Freedom has been over in the US for a long, long time.

Re:WTF?

[Captain Jack Taylor]

Same thing applies to the States, and just about everywhere else, mate. Countries with low crime rates (Canada, for example - can't name any others off the top of my head, but I know there are a few with lower...Iceland I think?) generally also have higher reform rates, because crime really doesn't get as accepted or glamourized by society. American society has always had a bit of a romantic affair with the character of the gangster...British society has often seen criminal figures sticking up for themselves as heroes (exception: American Revolution)! So of course, these nations will have a higher crime rate, and after centuries of it...it's hard to change. What I don't like, is how it's pushing on other nations with the advent of more globalization. You get shit like Grand Theft Auto and all the gangsta rap influencing children and making them think this stuff is "cool". Even around here, youth gangs' numbers are at unprecedented highs, and it's not going to stop. We need to look at crime from a social standpoint, not just from a punitive one. Keep stuff like GTA out of the hands of impressionable children, or for crap's sake...at least teach them the difference between fantasy and reality. Parents these days disgust me. Taylor Out.

Re:WTF?

[dr_dank]

Everyone here is missing the point. Asbos work and they work well, they're not abused yet and have mostly been used on complete assholes.

First, they came for the complete assholes. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a complete asshole.
then, they came for the dickheads. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a dickhead.
then, they came for the dingbats. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a dingbat.
then, they came for the schmucks. Who will speak out for me?

Re:WTF?

[purple_cobra]

ASBOs are imposed for 'unreasonable' behaviour, so repeated infringements are unlikely to result in anything more than one of those ridiculous tags...
The ASBO legislation is hideous, seemingly designed to be a catch-all method for criminalisation of any given behaviour. e.g. wearing a particular type of hat/clothing, using any language more explicit than 'darn', etc. The original idea had some merit but, as ever with Blair's government, it was perverted into a tool to criminalise the wrong sort of people; ATM this is people wearing hooded sweatshirts and, in general, anyone under the age of 40.
Cynical? You're damn right. Every time Blair and Reid use the word 'respect' - which, incidentally, makes them sound like Tim Westwood's dad - I have to suppress the urge to vomit. I have no respect for the corrupt and morally-bankrupt shower of slurry we call our government, and I find it laughable that they presume they could possibly earn that respect.

Re:WTF?

[It'sYerMam]

The problem for many people seems to be a matter of degree. This proposal can apparently used to impose much crazier restrictions than those used for ASBOs. The real issue I find is just how much evidence you'll need for one of these things. If you don't need enough evidence to convict them just how little is it possible to get away with? Perhaps this is a wider issue (not necessarily a problem, though) that needs to be looked at in the judicial system.

Re:WTF?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So far it's had to have been reasonable, not just someone going "LOL ASBO!!", people who have been seen by entire estates. Think the white trash living in a nice neighbour type people.

I admit it can be twisted and corrupted, but right now it hasn't been. But then it's labour, soon they'll give Christians asbos just for not worshipping them.

Re:WTF?

[mgblst]

Good point. Who cares about ASBOs when your police department can shoot a completely innocent person dead (except for being guilty of having a real tan), and get nothing but a fine for it. And it was covered up and lied about by the police commissioner - yeah, ASBOs are the problem.

Re:WTF?

[RexRhino]

The example you give is a perfect example of ASBOS abuse.

There is lots of graffiti in the park... do they put a camera in the park and get real evidence of vandalism? Increase partrols and catch someone in the act?

No! Instead, without a trial or any evidence, they deny law abiding citizens the right to use the public services that they pay for.

"But, you don't understand... these were DRUNKS!!! Well we didn't give them blood tests and charge them with public intoxication... we don't have too, we know they were scum! SCUM! They were wearing old clothes like they were poor or something, they were laughing and smiling, AND SOME WERE NOT EVEN WHITE!!! We sure showed those dirty scummy people not to come around our neighborhood!"

This is old fashion "run the gypsies out of town" style vigilante justice, wrapped in politically correct government-technocratic rhetoric.

Re:WTF?

[loraksus]

Plus lets me honest here, the UK police force right now has bigger issues. They shot a guy in the head 8 times for "being a terrorist", when he was totally innocent and now they're getting done on Healthy and safety instead of murder charges they deserve.

Don't forget about the massive coverup that they threw up, which slowly crumbled until it was shown that basically evey wiord they said about the case in the two weeks or so was a lie.
Or that they apparantly took 30 seconds to fire 11 shots...

Re:WTF?

[russotto]

Typically they let out the traditional criminals who are no real threat to the government or the powers that be, to make space for the political prisoners -- that is, those who went and violated the arbitrary order of some judge or MP or something.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

'and thanks to this new law I'll never visit!"

It isn't a law, just a proposal.

Not all proposals make it to law. Some proposals that make it to law are then subsequently struck down by the High Court, Law Lords, or are rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, forcing the Law Lords to then strike them down.

Even if a proposal makes it to law it isn't necessarily enforced, and can be repealed.

Re:WTF?

[Grym]

then, they came for the schmucks. Who will speak out for me?

The loudmouths?

Oh wait! I know this one! The slashdot pedants?

Re:WTF?

[myowntrueself]

This is old fashion "run the gypsies out of town" style vigilante justice

And pretty soon many more people in the UK will understand precisely why Gypsies are so damn paranoid and distrusting of, well of everyone really.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the scummy people who think it's fun to throw rocks at an old persons home.
Or shoot cats with bb guns, ride motorbikes up and down streets at high speed on the sidewalk with no regard for anyone,launch firewaorks at people.

Those are the sort of people that get asbo's where I used to live.

However as an alternative to asbo's (which the court denied for one scumbag that kept breaking into a young womans house) someone found a much more effective solution. Lets just say he wont be breakiong into anyones house for some time.

Re:WTF?

[shilly]

You're missing the point. Both Asbos and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes are the symptoms of the same illness: state power not being properly fettered.

The "broken-windows" theory of policing, in which we apply zero tolerance to small infractions to prevent the development of a society plagued by more serious infractions, applies as much to the policing of our governments' powers to prevent abuse as to the policing of our streets.

Re:WTF?

[shilly]

Marvellous, vigilantism. That works very well in Northern Ireland. And of course, there's no chance you'll ever get the wrong person. It's not like a bunch of idiots ever grafitti'd the front door of a paediatrician's home because they thought she was a paedophile...

If it's all the same to you, I think most of us would prefer to stick to having the state administer the criminal law and justice, thanks.

Re:WTF?

[IIH]

Everyone here is missing the point. Asbos work and they work well, they're not abused yet and have mostly been used on complete assholes.

Not been abused???

Have a look at some of the aburd rulings

• Banning a kid from saying the word "grass"
• stopping a 19-year-old from entering his own home
• Evicting pensioners from their own home (subsequently thrown out by the court)
• Charging an 88 yo man for being "sarcastic"
• Not allowing young kids from meeting more than one friend at a time.
• Banning a woman from owning a pay-as-you-go mobile phone (cell phone)

If telling people what words not to say, removing them from their own home, or arresting them for going to a public place like a park, so on are not abuses, then I dispair what actions would have to occurr before they were classed as such

But of course, they're only used against "bad people", so it's all okay.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget:

Child with mental health issues banned from staring over the garden fence at his neighbours

16 year old with reading age of an 8 year old given an asbo with 11 different conditions written in legalese so that he simply didn't understand what he was and was not allowed to do

Man banned from maintaining motor vehicles (not for being an incompetent mechanic)

General asbo in a town banning people under 18 from being out past 9 pm without a parent/guardian (all but ruled completely illegal - ruled in favour of police authority on technicality that the 15 yr old challenging the curfew hadn't actually been arrested under it yet)

I have a fundamental problem...

[KingSkippus]

I have a fundamental problem with this:

The UK government has proposed that suspected cybercriminals could be banned from the Internet or have their PCs seized, even if they've not been convicted.

So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?

I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Welcome to Blair's Britain.

The irony is that most people actually seem to think ASBOs are a good thing.

Rich.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[b0s0z0ku]

I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.

This watering-down of rights amounts to treason, nothing more or less. It's a violation of the spirit of British law from the Magna Carta forward, and will serve to destroy Britain in the long run.

Wait... doesn't Britain still have the death penalty for treason? Bring on the ropes and blindfolds, please. Cromwell was exhumed, hanged, drawn, and quartered two years after he died. Perhaps it's time to resume this fine tradition upon the current scoundrels in government. But ... they're not dead yet... well, hanging and quartering tends to correct that!

This almost make you long for the days when the monarchy and the House of Lords were stronger. At least they knew their boundaries for the most part.

-b.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[deanj]

Blair decided all this all by himself?

I had no idea he had such power. You should really look into changing that.

Or....maybe that was just a dig on Blair when he had nothing to do with it, and it was all FUD?

I think I like that second option.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Tx]

Without being convicted of a crime, but having been convicted of a civil offense. Contrary to what the quoted passage appears to say, suspicion will not be enough to earn someone an ASBO.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[squarooticus]

Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up

Yeah, too bad they gave up all their guns. (Well, everyone except the criminals, that is.) Kind of hard to rise up now, isn't it?

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[AstroDrabb]

Welcome to Blair's Britain.

How much longer until Blair can be removed from office? At least here in the USA, we only have to deal with Bush until 2008 and then the Constitution prevents the dummy from being able to be president ever again!

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Blair decided all this all by himself?

You've never heard of phrases like "Thatcher's Britain", "Reaganomics", etc. which refer to a political or economic movement whose figurehead was a particular person, but that particular person was not wholly responsible for every single detail?

Sad.

Rich.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... I mean it's not like they have a democratic process or anything.

Jackass.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[TheRaven64]

Wait... doesn't Britain still have the death penalty for treason?

No. Britain had the death penalty for 'High Treason' (a small subset of treason, mainly crimes against the royal family) until a little under a decade ago. One of the conditions of signing the European Convention on Human Rights was the abolition of the death penalty, and so it went then.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Aardpig]

What, and you think you folks could rise up? Sad little sheep, keep bleating about the 2nd.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with your "rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day" is that it in itself could be considered anti-social. Welcome to your very own ASBO for protesting.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[b0s0z0ku]

No. Britain had the death penalty for 'High Treason' (a small subset of treason, mainly crimes against the royal family) until a little under a decade ago.

Incorrect, AFAIK. Under traditional British jurisprudence, "petty treason" was rebellion against superior members of the family. Generally applied to women who killed their husbands or children who killed parents. "High treason" was treason against the King and Country (basically everything else).

-b.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[squarooticus]

What, and you think you folks could rise up?

Push them enough, and they will.

Sad little sheep, keep bleating about the 2nd.

It's funny you call me a sheep. Sheep are prey. I am not. I am a free man, and have the ability to defend that freedom, which makes me distinctly not prey.

And I will continue to bleat about the 2nd, because the teeth of the 2nd makes enforcing the 1st possible.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Bimo_Dude]

At least here in the USA, we only have to deal with Bush until 2008 and then the Constitution prevents the dummy from being able to be president ever again!

Bush's opinion of the constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

I sure hope you're right, although I think it would be better if we didn't wait until 2008 to get him (and his cronies) out of office.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Oxyrubber]

I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.

I hate this law to death (and this may be one of the reasons the US has a Second Ammendment), but I don't think your wording was quite correct.

You can be a criminal and not convicted. (At least in the US) the justice system (as it is supposed to work) requires a certain amount of evidence to convict a suspect. Without that threshold, a person can be guilty of committing a crime without the court being able to convict/sentence them. To say that you are not a criminal because you are not yet behind bars is a logically fallacy (unless I don't understand the definition of criminal). That is to say: you can be aquitted for reasons other than being innocent of the crime for which you were arrested.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[loraksus]

Ahh, yes, but you see, Part IV ('Dispersal of groups etc') of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 gives the police powers to disperse groups of two or more persons in any public place if their presence "has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed".

("God save the king" not necessary)
The sheep in the uk will just go along with it though.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[KingSkippus]

I'm glad that someone else here has the common sense to realize that "rise up" doesn't necessarily always mean "pick up your guns and start shooting people." In fact, just as a general rule, I ask all Slashdot readers to please make a mental note that unless I'm speaking of literally defending someone's life from an imminent threat, never assume that anything I say means, "pick up your guns and start shooting people."

*sigh* (I thought that was obvious. My bad, I should have known better.)

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[RedOregon]

To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprise of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. -- Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia! -- Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[jez9999]

This almost make you long for the days when the monarchy and the House of Lords were stronger. At least they knew their boundaries for the most part.

Heh. Henry VIII (hint: search for 'executed').

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[jez9999]

What, and you think you folks could rise up?

Push them enough, and they will.

Yes, but just HOW hard must they be pushed before they rise up? If it's harder than government spying illegally on citizens, kidnapping citizens for extraordinary rendition to 'extract' confessions from them, placing hundreds of people in an offshore prison where law "doesn't apply", slowly but surely removing freedom of speech (if a website promoted eg. terrorism), and promoting the rights of copyright holders to the extent that their breach is considered by law more serious than rape... then i'd say the point of rebellion is somewhat defeated.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[jez9999]

Please replace 'the sheep' with 'the MPs of the Labour party, having been called to vote on a three-line whip, despite their law being criticised by just about every other corner of society'.

Face it, democracy that allows a simple majority to implement a law sucks; it's the tyranny of the majority - and it's not even a majority of the country, it's a majority of MPs who aren't exactly representative in the first place.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[loraksus]

I'm pretty sure that the labour party hasn't been the only one passing stupid laws in the past 20 years, but yeah, some of the labour mps (especially the knife ban ones) are fucking whiny idiots.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[geminidomino]

Until, of course, criticizing the government is deemed "anti-social."

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[geminidomino]

Just wait until they outlaw reality TV. Then, to quote Doc Brown, "You're gonna see some serious shit."

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Cederic]

As I understand it, conviction of a civil offense is not required to give someone an ASBO. I'll check with my mother, she hands them out like candy.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[Cederic]

Use your 2nd amendment granted firearms against the Government and you will become prey.

The Afghans are far better armed than civilians in the US, far more experienced in using those arms, have very good terrain for conducting guerilla warfare and are extremely motivated. They have also successfully used violence resistance against pretty much every government they've had for the past 30 years - including one backed by the US military.

They also have a lousy kill ratio, they hide from helicopters, they keep running when hunted.

They're still prey.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[IIH]

So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?

Of course. The lastest update is that the crime of "being a terror suspect" carries with it the punishment of a month in jail, and is being increased to three months. Or, if you're "really suspicious", you can be put under house arrest indefinitely, or other restrictions under a control order

I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.

But you don't understand, there are only used against "bad people". Looking though the BBC debate about the 90 day issue shows that a lot of people believe that suspect=guilty when it comes to terrorism.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[tehcyder]

"rise up" doesn't necessarily always mean "pick up your guns and start shooting people."

It may not necessarily always mean that, but it certainly implies that you're prepared to go that far.

You can have a peaceful uprising (e.g. the Ukraine a few years ago) but as a rule once you mobilise a large angry section of the population, violence will follow. And a government would certainly be wise to expect violence and prepare appropriate counter-measures.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[KingSkippus]

It may not necessarily always mean that, but it certainly implies that you're prepared to go that far.

No it doesn't. In fact, I would hope that in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't even come close. I think Americans should rise up and have the DMCA overturned. But I don't think they should arm themselves and take to the streets over it. I think that they should rise up and demand public funding of stem cell research. Again, I don't think they should arm themselves and take to the streets over it. I think that speed bumps on government-owned roads should be outlawed. I don't think... well, you get the idea.

You can have a peaceful uprising (e.g. the Ukraine a few years ago) but as a rule once you mobilise a large angry section of the population, violence will follow.

This may be somewhat true, but it doesn't make it right, and leaders of movements who encourage it are usually more dangerous than whatever it is they're fighting. Only extremely rarely is this kind of thing justified. Read some of the writings and speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi.

And a government would certainly be wise to expect violence and prepare appropriate counter-measures.

If by "counter-measures" you mean "change," I agree. Trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Both are pretty spectacular to watch on CNN, but both are also pretty stupid.

Re:I have a fundamental problem...

[tehcyder]

I think my objection is to the use of the words "rise up" rather than the actual content of what you are saying, which I mainly agree with.

To me "rise up" implies "uprising" and this has a different connotation than "(peaceful) civil disobedience".

WTF!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear that's just horrid. I can't believe that people are that afraid of things they don't understand. I'm so happy I don't live in the UK.

Does this say something about humans as a whole? Are we that afraid of someone hurting us that we want to impact the basic freedoms of people who have been proven guilty of no crime!? /cry

Re:WTF!!!

[bky1701]

This is news to you? Since WWII most of the western world has been a Fear-Based society. Security > Freedom; forget those idiot "founding fathers", they didn't live in our time!!!!!

Right....

Freedom doesn't matter to the masses. Never did, never will. Only thing that matters is their ability to remain in the dark about the real world and stay in their own little world of fear.

Sadly, I am afraid of this mindset... you just can't win, I guess.

To my U.K. Bretheren...

[eno2001]

...sorry to hear about the fascists coming your way too. We're locked up tighter than a drum here in the U.S. if we don't support Bush or the war in Iraq or anti-gay legislation, or anti-middle and anti-lower income tax breaks. I guess the terrorists did win. The elections that is...

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[Atzanteol]

We're locked up tighter than a drum here in the U.S. if we don't support Bush or the war in Iraq or anti-gay legislation, or anti-middle and anti-lower income tax breaks.

So you're posting from prison then I take it?

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[Oligonicella]

"We're locked up tighter than a drum here in the U.S. if we don't support Bush or the war in Iraq or anti-gay legislation, or anti-middle and anti-lower income tax breaks."

Bullshit. Give real examples.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[ScentCone]

Don't know why this was modded flaimebait when it's true. I guess people are just too afraid to admit it. If I had some mod points I'd mod you up.

If it's true, then do what the person you're praising did not do, and provide some actual examples of what he's claiming. For example: in one post, he's managing to say that disagreeing with the executive branch of the government carries some dire consequences... and yet, here is doing exactly that. Well, which is it? If you agree that people in the US can't vocally complain about the administration, then how do you explain the entire political opposition? How do you explain Howard Dean? Barbara Streisand? How about people like Michael Moore, who made $200M by loudly disagreeing and ridiculing through distortion?

Those are the opposite of being "locked down," so I guess it's a good thing you don't actually have mod points, in that it sounds like they might be used to add some patina of credibility to a factually incorrect comment.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[DarkDragonVKQ]

The best method of control is to give people the illusion that they still have the control. Its much easier that way then it is to use outright force.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I understand what the original poster was saying. In America you can't disagree with any of the things he listed without being drowned out by a very vocal minority. Let's ask some questions here. Has the war in Iraq been successful? The obvious answer is no. You can argue all you want that these things take time or whatever scapegoat you want to use. The plain facts are that the war was started on made up or faulty intelligence. The goals of the war shifted from "to get the WMDs" to "to bring democracy to Iraq" and everything in between. The key reasons for starting the war are never really honestly addressed: One, They wanted Saddam Hussein out of there even though they were responsible for putting him there in the first place. Two, there is a lot of money tied up in this whole Iraq war business. Everything from getting oil (witness the typical Iraq war supporter's bumper sticker that states: "Kick their ass, take their gas") to the huge contractor deals for endless "reconstruction" in a live war zone. Pretty damn profitable. That is if you don't manage to deservedly get your head cut off by the U.S. military.

Regarding things like the tax cuts that didn't help anyone in the middle and lower income brackets, it all comes down to selfish greed. Everyone always gripes about paying taxes but when they do get cut and programs that benefitted them get taken away, they say, "Hey! How come we don't have service X anymore"? There are two kinds of dislikes when it comes to taxes. The first is the kind that only idiots partake of which is that they believe that they don't owe anyone anything for the free services that their government provides them with. These people range from the "duh, I want all my money for myself" moron to the "I'm being robbed because I don't use services X, Y and Z, why should I have to pay for them" bastard. The second type is more like me, "I hate tax season, not because I don't like paying taxes (I personally think they're great) but because the math and the paperwork are too damn complex. Now as far as the cuts go, well they didn't help me and I get paid pretty well. Not to mention I don't care if I do get an extra $1000 back at the end of the year compared to the previous year, I want my national parks to be clean and protected from commercial interests. I want public colleges to have MORE funding so that tuition can go down (it should be free folks but it can't be because of the people who don't want to pay for that: ie tax haters). We should have socialized medicine because the costs of health care in the private sector are out of hand. Again a nice tax for that would help greatly. But saying any of this is risky because the people in lock-step with the loud voices of the thuggery in office will drown you out. And if you get louder they either ridicule and discredit you or if you get some mindshare, they kill you. This has happened many times.

The whole gay marriage thing was less about gay marriage and more about rallying the religious conservatives (who can't think for themselves because God told them not to) to the vote so that they would vote for Bush last election. But if we're going to be honest, the only people opposed to gay marriage are people who have not socially evolved which is realistically a small percentage of the population. Visit any major city and you can be sure that over 80% of the population is intelligent enough to support gay marriage. The small cowtowns don't count because they have less population.

The central issue here is that even though a majority of Americans feel one way, they are being drowned out by the powerful minority who disagree. And at this point drowned out is happening with jailings, false charges, and the twisting of laws to make such incarceration legal.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[eno2001]

The real example is that there are very few outlets for us to voice these opinions now. Sure we can blog all we want, but since there's so much of that going on, it has no validity. The mainstream only responds to the mainstream press which no longer actually broadcast anything approaching reality. We have no options because we lack power and money. And we lack power and money because most of us are not insterested in either. Those who are, are the ones in control and they don't represent us. That's about the most basic the example can get. And you can be certain that if someone from down here at street level got access to the mindshare of America, that person would be demonized, discredited or killed (literally or financially). More likely a mixture of all of the above. I can't get on Fox News for instance and opine about the scary situation that America is in. They won't let me. And if I tried, they'd brand me with some negative terms so that people like you can say, "damn right"!

There's also the "birds of a feather" theory. While you might know a lot of people who think that Bush and friends are doing a wonderful job and that your lives are better off for it. I also know just as many, if not more people who think America is in major trouble. (I'm in Ohio which is getting to be a very scary place) We're losing jobs. We have less and less money to get by as the cost of living increases at an alarming pace. We have poor, if any healthcare. The big cities that were once flourishing are now in decay and the money and jobs are being rerouted to the small towns thanks to some political games. The election system is very possibly compromised at worst and untrustworthy at best. Businesses are getting more and more protection from being held accountable for the things they do to us (We've got FirstEnergy here who re-opened a nuke plant that was closed because of a major malfunction that almost caused a major incident. The re-opening was done against the advice of several authorities in the nuclear industry simply because it would be profitable for FirstEnergy). So maybe my persepective is skewed from yours because of where I live and the people I know and vice-versa. I don't live in a rich development or own an SUV, but that doesn't make me any less American...

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[ScentCone]

The best method of control is to give people the illusion that they still have the control. Its much easier that way then it is to use outright force.

OK, so that's a nice ominous-sounding platitude... but how does address my question about actually describing the previous comment's imagined parallel in the US?

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[himurabattousai]

The whole of "dire consequences" is not limited to imprisonment. In fact, imprisonment could be the least severe consequence. After all, a jail sentence does come with the nice perks of free (taxpayer funded) room and board.

Corporations, on the other hand, don't have to respect freedom of speech. Saying the wrong thing can get you fired. Whether you speak out against your corporate boss or your governmental boss doesn't matter, and being fired for saying the wrong thing, or "insubordination," as they might call it, is just as damaging as being fired for incompetence. It's a different way of ruining someone's life than imprisonment, but it is just as effective.

Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand and Michael Moore all have more money than most of us know what to do with given ten lifetimes. They can afford to criticize because their money makes them immune to the consequences that would destroy someone making $30,000 a year.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[ScentCone]

Corporations, on the other hand, don't have to respect freedom of speech

But you can punish a corporation any time you want: don't give them any money. If their policies or behavior is bad enough, it takes little more than one well-crafted blog to create a firestorm of bad (and profit-sapping) publicity. Things have changed, a lot. That being said: when you cash a check from an employer, you're working within a lot of boundaries that your employment dictates (actually, it's a two-way street). They want what you can do, and you want the paycheck. If the circumstances under which the money is to be earned don't satisfy, move on to somewhere else.

In the US, we're dealing with very, very low unemployment. For the sort of person with skills and the intellect to even think about stuff like this, there are plenty of jobs to be had.

They can afford to criticize because their money makes them immune

Funny! That's usually what people say about Republicans. Never the less, the point is that there isn't some black-helicopter-traveling agency running around silencing people who don't like the current administration. There couldn't be more of such discourse, and that's as it should be (annoying as many voices can be!).

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo, your argument supporting the statement that we live in a fascist country where people are locked up for dissent is that people disagree with you and don't listen to what you have to say? It's called freedom baby. You have the right to speak, but not the right to be listened to.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[eno2001]

You're quite correct but it should be universally applied. The right shouldn't have a louder voice than the left and vice-versa.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[pete6677]

How do you propose that each side's "voice" be kept even? Who will enforce this? Oh wait, you're just trolling as usual, nevermind.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren...

[eno2001]

Trolling? What is this "trolling" of which you speak? Perhaps I should subscribe to your newsletter?

Feeling guilty?

[TheOrangeMan]

Guilty untily proven guilty.

Re:Feeling guilty?

[Renraku]

Just imagine. Sitting in your house playing World of Warcraft, and the police kick your door in. In a heartbeat, you're pinned to the ground with an assault rifle pointed at your face and your house is being ransacked by authorities. Not only do they refuse to pay for the broken possessions, clean up time, etc, but they throw you in jail and take your computer.

Why? Because your snotty neighbor that saw you awake at 2am thought you might be up to no good. They called the police on you, and the police responded. Good luck getting it back from the government, too, the UK has a terrible record of getting possessions back to people. Expect to pay to get out of jail, get your computer back, and for the cab home.

Why would you want to live there? If this country ever became like that, I would fight back. First with the soapbox, and then the ammo box. They might nail me once and punish me for not committing the crime, but the second time would be a massacre/stand-off. The UK is like that because the people are letting it.

Re:Feeling guilty?

[stnf]

Sure. But innocent until caught.

Re:Feeling guilty?

[Khashishi]

Innocent until proven innocent.

More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[ettlz]

There, I've said it. I am ashamed of my own government. I am disgusted at their blantant disregard for freedom, and the human "rights" they claim to champion. I abhor their reactionary, quasi-populist approach to law enforcement that will ultimately criminalise non-conformists. I denounce their fear-mongering, alarmist, despicable manipulation of the public (90 days' detention without trial? All your private keys are belng to us?).

UK Slashdotters: let's make sure we punish these lunatics at the next general election.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[Anonymous Coward]

and i thought the tories were bad....these guys make them look positivly liberal...

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if it keeps going this way, I hear Guy Forkes masks are going qite cheaply these days.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

And lots of awesome explosions.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[idontgno]

UK Slashdotters: let's make sure we punish these lunatics at the next general election.

You're just begging for an ABSO, aren't you?

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[PinkyDead]

You should punish these lunatics at the next general election and vote Conservative so you can abhor their reactionary, quasi-populist approach to law enforcement that will ultimately criminalise non-conformists.

Tough choice...

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[too_old_to_be_irate]

Well said, and all that, but the alternative is what/who? We effectively have a one party state, with a few minor variations to the authoritarian seasoning, and a daily dose of public pantomime to give a semblance of discussion. In reality, it's all sewn up tighter than a vasectomised scrotum.

I may yet live to regret my /. nick.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[idontgno]

You don't wanna know what an ABSO is; it's much harsher than an ASBO. Really.

IANAL, on either side of the Pond. And apparently I'm no damn good at remembering NTLAs FTFA*.

*Non-Three-Letter Acronyms From The Fine Article

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[joshier]

UK guy here too.. and yeah, it's disturbing, I guess this is just some part of a bigger plan.

I don't know what to really say, I mean, in my comment above, I express my feelings that this will only increase crime, and it seems like it's a way of decreasing the population ... I mean, the criminals who go into prison will probably only get worse, and when they come out they might be so screwed up and go killing people.. I don't know really, it's so odd.

Anyway, by the time people realize that all their rights have gone, they may decide that their judgments of blair in the first place were wrong..

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[NeilSkoglund]

riot time me thinks? id hate to work in an IT firm and get an ASBIT (asbo being clever) :-p

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[RexRhino]

I am in Canada, so I don't have access to all the info you have in the U.K., but I was under the impression that Antisocial Behavior Orders where seen as a "progressive" and "democratic" thing, and have broad support from all parties. The Right love it because it is "tough" on "criminals", and the Left love it because it provides the aparatus for social engineering, and the middle of the road people love it because it is populist.

I don't really think voting out the labour party will have any effect, as it seems to be part of a larger ideological shift towards more and more government control over people's lives (this shift seems to be a global thing, by the way). People in the UK, like many people elsewhere, are having a love affair with authority and government. As long as people see firm government action as the solution to all problems, then tools to allow government to take more firm action are going to be popular. Government can't save us all if it has it's hands tied, right?

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[loraksus]

Well, you sat by and did nothing when they took your guns, while at the same time arming their police officers with MP5's and posting snipers on the rooftops of public buildings.
You sat by and let your government introduce internment without trial
You let your government suspend the use of jury trials when they feel like it.
You let your government has post video cameras on every corner and said nothing when they staffed them with perverts.
Your government lets the police get away with murder even when they engage in a massive cover-up / criminal conspiracy (take you pick) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5186050.stm
(pats of) Your government wants to pass a law that punishes carrying anything for self defense (for example - a swiss army knife) with a mandatory 5 years in prison and a good portion of your fellow countrymen think that it is a good idea.
So, really, this isn't the thing that should be getting you upset.
And, given your history, it shouldn't surprising that your government is using asbos in an arbitrary fashion either.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[Amouth]

funny.. and i jsut bought a face hammer.. designed not to leave impressions or marks.. just get the job done

i hope they smile :)

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[ettlz]

So, really, this isn't the thing that should be getting you upset.

It's just that this is in the subset of upsetting things that are relevant to this particular forum and discussion. The UK government's apparent general crackdown on liberty does upset me, greatly. It upsets me that the British public are too stupid, too content to suck down intellectual junk-food like EastEnders and Big Brother and Jeremy Kyle, to care. They don't value what freedoms they have left. They take them for granted and think "this will never affect me". It's time to wake up.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[plague3106]

I thought it was ETLA - Extended Three Letter Acronym

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[Teppic_52]

I couldn't agree more with the parent. Trying not to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but use this and email your MP, they are the buffer between you and the Home Office. Only send it once though or the'll be round for your laptop.....

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[Pholostan]

The answer is to become a Pirate. We have our own political party here in Sweden, Piratparitet (Pirate Party) http://www.piratpartiet.se/
Our homepage is in swedish for swedes ofcourse. But ther is a Pirate
Parties International Network just forming, the page is here: http://www.pp-international.net/

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[voteforkerry78]

The form of punishment they're supposed to use is the Lib Dems, right?

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[OriginalArlen]

Completely agree with you, although that has nothing to do with this nonsense story at all. (Perhaps ASBOs are a Bad Thing; I'm not sure, personally, and have changed my mind several times on the issue. However that all fades into insignificance next to Iraq, ID cards, ANPR cameras (google up "UK national ANPR", but be ready to change your trousers), the NHS, the cronies,.. and all the rest of it. Basically, I'm with Steve Bell :)

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[ettlz]

Trying not to sound like a Daily Mail reader...

They are the other target of my bile ;) Vicious little rag...

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

UK Slashdotters: let's make sure we punish these lunatics at the next general election.

May I remind you of the first rule of the first-past-the-post voting system: Either Labour or the Tories will always win, and whoever wins will get a majority in the house of commons. None of the two are of any help with the problem at hand. Imagine what sort of revolution it would take to get the LibDems voted into the power.

I'd say this country needs a change of constitution, but given it has one of the oldest constitutions in the world (the Magna Carta), I am not very confident of any change, any time soon.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[Handpaper]

Vote Independent.
Doesn't matter who it is, doesn't really matter what their position(s) is/are. Just as long as you're not propping up a political party.
Don't donate to political parties. Let them die for lack of funds. New Labour is nearly bankrupt already through alienation of its traditional supporters.
Get rid of political parties and you prevent 'One Man's Vision' fucking up your country.
Stop politicians being celebrities, send them back to the servant's entrance where they belong (they are Servants - never let them Reign)
When new legislation must be debated and voted upon by over a hundred representatives, none of whom owe any allegiance to any of the others, only the most sensible and necessary will survive.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[tehcyder]

UK Slashdotters: let's make sure we punish these lunatics at the next general election.

Yeah, let's bring back the fucking Tories, what could possibly go wrong?

Your proposel has been heard ...

[gerddie]

Suspected cybercriminals could also have severe limitations imposed on their financial dealings, requiring them to use "notified financial instruments" such as credit cards and bank accounts, and limit the amount of cash they can carry.
Thank you for your input.

Re:Your proposel has been heard ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if one has been suspected in both bank robbery and cyber fraud, then that person is not allowed to pay in neither cash or bank transfer. Should such a person pay his/her everyday expenses in gold coins?

Never expect a thief to stay in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Never expect a hacker to stay away from the Internet. Especially with unprotected (or poorly protected) wireless access points. :)

Bring back shunning instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, they're antisocial, so that won't work.

Okay, it's off to the stocks and cabbage.

So long, due process...

[alexo]

we hardly knew ye.

And in the US....

[Bomarc]

They call it "Homeland Security"

  -- I'm astounded by the number of people that don't have a problem with what the government is doing.

Re:And in the US....

[deanj]

Actually, this can't happen in the US (no matter what the tinfoil hatters say), because it's against the Constitution.

It'd be thrown out of court.

Next!

Re:And in the US....

[vidarh]

Yes, because we all know how much your current president cares about the constitution. Guantanamo bay, anyone? Illegal wiretaps?

It wouldn't be thrown out of court, because it wouldn't make it to court until after they were done with you.

banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD?

[alpinerod]

Banishing from the internet: no email, web, which to me means that any chance for any decent job is non-existent. Would you like fries with that?

Re:banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD?

[LiquidCoooled]

I'm sorry, that EPOS machine you are using is technically a computer, get back to your mopping slave.

Re:banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD?

[soft_guy]

Sorry, you can't work at McD either because the cash registers and fry cookers are technical computers now.

Instead you will be sleeping in an alley and begging for spare change.

Re:banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you would be begging for spare money as bank transfers, because of the prohibition to handle cash.

Re:banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD?

[coofercat]

Right - and herin lies the fundamental problem with ASBOs. Many people (some of whom seem to have commented here) think asbos are good because they get rid of scumbags who otherwise evade prosecution by the law. Indeed, asbos were introduced to combat such problems. However, the current UK government has shown time and time again that it responds to problems in the wrong way.

This as an example: There are already ample laws regarding the misuse of computer systems, unauthorised use of systems etc etc. These laws could be clarified, adjusted or ammended to combat the problem of so called cybercriminals. Indeed, these laws are already used in many ways to do just that.

Instead, the government wants to use it's 'great idea', the asbo, to do this. Asbos are the wrong response to the problem, because they discriminate totally, and allow no space for correct behaviour. As you point out, all that would be left for a 'hacker' would be a McJob, because they won't be allowed near a computer. Conviction under existing computer misuse laws would sure make it difficult to convince BigBank that they were safe, but if they got a job, they could use a computer quite happily. Clearly getting some bright, but misguided kid, into a situation where they are forced to have a McJob isn't going to make them realise the error of their ways - it's far more likely to breed resentment and lack of respect for authority/the government. If that kid gets near a computer in the future, they're not likely to just sit there and read the BBC news.

Whilst asbos are currently very carefully administered, there is so much room for abuse it's just not funny. The Home Office is procedurally and culturally totally broken, so I wouldn't be suprised if asbos were already being abused. Certainly, they seem to be getting dished out for the most bizarre things. Either way, asbos create more discrimination against people (scumbags or otherwise) and alienate such people from society. Everyone agrees something has to be done about such people, but this is not the answer.

</rant>

Scare Tactics

[bigtimepie]

I think it's all talk. What are they going to do? Go door to door trying to find out who's using their computer "cybercrime"? Even if it becomes legislation, the enforcement will be weak. They're just trying to scare people away from "cybercrime".

Re:Scare Tactics

[Bob MacSlack]

I think it'll be more like: someone accuses you of breaking into their computer (former boss, ex, whatever), goes to court and you're acquitted on all counts because you didn't do it, "Oh by the way, since you were accused you were probably guilty, here's an ASBO, don't touch a computer ever again. Have a nice day."

Antisocial Personality Disorder

[Pancake Bandit]

Sidenote for anyone who thinks it's funny to call it "antisocial behavior":

This refers to an antisocial personality disorder. This doesn't mean introversion, but someone who has no morals, remorse for wrongdoing or any capability of foresight. People with an APD are the stereotypical criminal masterminds or street-smart con-men. They are often charming at first, but their only motivation is their own desires. They can be fantastic at acting, pretending to be sorry, but see society as nothing more than a game to win, at any cost.

Diagnostic Criteria in the US

But yeah, this legislation is a bunch of crap.

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[darcling]

From the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition - the de facto standard for mental disorders):

"The essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder. Because deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder..."

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[metamatic]

This doesn't mean introversion, but someone who has no morals, remorse for wrongdoing or any capability of foresight. People with an APD are the stereotypical criminal masterminds or street-smart con-men.

Or politicians.

Total lack of foresight before starting war in Iraq? Check. Lack of remorse over it? Check.

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[cr0sh]

They can be fantastic at acting, pretending to be sorry, but see society as nothing more than a game to win, at any cost.

Hell - this could be used to describe just about any corporation. It could easily be applied to describe the United States government. Quite a few politicians would also fit this definition.

In short, when major elements of society act in a way to "get ahead", then punish others for doing the same, it is nothing more than hypocrisy (stemming from a need for self-preservation and greed, most likely), plain and simple.

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[stnf]

[no] capability of foresight.

Is this really a characteristic of a criminal mastermind? =)

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[Fluffy_Kitten]

The scary part is that I want to be like that...

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[IceFoot]

...no morals, remorse for wrongdoing... often charming ... can be fantastic at acting.


Thanks. This explains the behavior of one of my former co-workers! He demeaned, tricked, and manipulated us who had to work around him. A real jerk and pain in the ass for us, but to the boss he always acted the part of "special, loyal friend and outstanding employee". I finally left, partly in disgust with his behavior, and management's blindness to it.

Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder

[Wes Janson]

They are often charming at first, but their only motivation is their own desires. They can be fantastic at acting, pretending to be sorry, but see society as nothing more than a game to win, at any cost.

So wait, are we talking about the criminals or the politicians?

Some days I think I'd rather trust the criminals with the government...not that there's much difference anymore.

Justice! :)

[Intangion]

i suspect you might say something indecent, so your not allowed to talk again
ever
we are going to have to remove your tounge now

also there is a small chance you might pick pocket people with those hands of yours, so lets just remove those too.. might as well take the whole arm, dont want you jacking anyone in the face with your nubs

also we dont want you to ever run from the law so we are gonna have to take your legs too

Re:Justice! :)

[Soldrinero]

It's just a flesh wound!

Get back here, I'll bite your legs off!!

"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[evilandi]

voice_of_all_reason wrote: even if they've not been convicted

ASBOs are essentially the same as a restraining order. Restraining orders can be placed on people who haven't been convicted, either. Almost identical burden of proof, too.

Only if the terms of the restraining order (or ASBO) have been breached, does anyone go to jail.

Tomayto, tomato. It's just British English for "restraining order" with a few bits of neighbourhood stuff thrown in.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[NickFitz]

That may be true of ASBOs, but these proposals go a long way beyond that. From TFA, they want to have the power to confiscate property (including people's homes and businesses), wide-ranging powers to acquire and analyse data from both private and public databases, and even limit the amount of cash one is allowed to carry while preventing one from using anything other than "approved" credit cards or bank accounts - and all of this is "where the police do not have enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution".

Basically, this would give the police arbitrary powers to drag anyone they want before the courts, say "We have no evidence whatsoever that they've done anything wrong but we happen to think they're a bit dodgy" and reduce them to homelessness and penury. You don't have to be a student of jurisprudence to see that this is very far from the concept of due process.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[Anonymous Coward]

Restraining orders against people do not entail the inability to use the Internet or the seizure of property. The most 'draconian' restraining order is merely the orders made pending the decison of granting injunctions. They too do not entail the seizure of property or banning people from the Internets. These sort of terms are only made as part of a parole agreement to people convicted or that plead guilty to crimes.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[evilandi]

I think you're misunderstanding how ASBOs and restraining orders work.

With a restraining order, the prosecution asks the Judge to command the defendant not to do a bunch of unplesant things. If the defendant ignores this, and does those things, and that is proven in court, then and only then does he go to jail

With an ASBO, the prosecution asks the Judge to command the defendant not to do a bunch of unplesant things, and sets some penalties, such as having his PC confiscated or whatever if he ignores the order. If the defendant ignores the order, and does those things, and that is proven in court, then and only then does he have his PC confiscated or whatever.

The judge absolutely cannot order the guy's PC to be taken away or whatever, without proving breach of the order in court.

So it goes to court not once but twice. Firstly the Judge has to ascertain that there is sufficient grounds for granting the order, and secondly a jury has to be convinced that the order was breached.

Your remaining reservations are equally as valid against restraining orders, which have worked well for decades without anyone having a valid problem.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[NickFitz]

That is how ASBOs work, but TFA isn't about them: it's about the proposals in a Home Office green paper to introduce legislation allowing a new kind of order called a "Serious Crime Prevention Order". I reckon HMG is spinning these as being "similar to ASBOs" because that way people think it's no worse than banning some 14 year old shoplifter from a town centre, but if you read the article, or even better [PDF warning] the green paper, you'll find this is very different in scope and implementation. The mention of ASBOs in relation to this is a red herring which has done a very effective job of throwing the ZDnet journalist off the scent.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[plague3106]

Almost identical burden of proof, too.

That may be true in the UK, but in the US, there is a burden of proof, and it has to be pretty compelling.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[evilandi]

Eh? There is burden of proof requirement to convict someone of breaching a restraining order, same in the UK as the US.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[Aspirator]

restraining orders, which have worked well for decades without anyone having a valid problem.

I beg to differ. Restraining orders in my part of the US are obtainable without any evidence about
the person to whom they apply, only the state of mind of the person requesting them.

If evidence were available as to wrongdoing a restraining order would not be required, the person could
be prosecuted. (This would take court time.)

The existance of the restraining order criminalizes a lot of behaviour that would otherwise not be criminal.

Violation of a domestic restraining order results in jail time, and this actually occurs for people doing
such nasty things as sending birthday cards to their children.

The irony is, of course, that anyone who has the intention of doing serious damage to another person is
very unlikely to be deterred by a restraining order.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[voice_of_all_reason]

it's no worse than banning some 14 year old shoplifter from a town centre

Noobs, just ring the bell. Then all the peasants garrison inside and start firing arrows.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[OriginalArlen]

You mean magistrates, not judges; but other than that, you're basically right :) (What is the US equivalent of a magistrate, incidentally?)

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[plague3106]

You need a burden of proof just to GET the restraining order.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[Detritus]

There are magistrates in the federal court system, and in some states.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your remaining reservations are equally as valid against restraining orders, which have worked well for decades without anyone having a valid problem."

You've obviously never been or known a male who's been through the US Family "law" system....

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You neglect to mention that the rules of evidence for ASBOs have been significantly weakend, allowing, for example, the use of hearsay.

define: Hackers

[davro]

Hacker/Cracker now that could be an intresting definition for the courts to sort out.
Come visit us in are nice new police state.

Bush and Blair should face a international criminal court for plunged the world into conflict by planning and executing a war of aggression.
Nuremberg treaty
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20020412.php

Re:define: Hackers

[davro]

Im sure there has to be a human right issue here....

All we have todo is turn compter hacking into a religion and we have cracked it, excuse the pun.
Right to freedom of "thought, conscience and religion"

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been a noted increase in hackers targeting wireless hotspots and using them for whatever.

Just a first step...

[kabocox]

So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?

Remember the article yesterday about not needing anything other than an internet connection to have everything delivered and work at home? But anyone with that kind of life style is being targetted by this. You don't have to be guilty; you just have to be accused and it would ruin your life if you actually followed their rules. That's like saying the government will be taking away your car even if they don't don't find you guilty of any traffic offenses. This type of law would just make criminals of otherwise honest people. If anyone with a B.S. in Computer Science was targetted with this law, you'd be reduced to flipping burgers or being a manager because you wouldn't beable to use a computer. Heck, managers and burger flippers need to use computers now a days. So they just want to use this to drive some one towards a life of crime to survive?

Re:Just a first step...

[TacNuke]

They may not take your car, but they can take away your license to drive without a criminal conviction. The state takes your license through an administrative hearing. Even if you are not convicted of the original crime in the criminal case(say D.U.I) or something, the administrative process is a whole seprate type of hearing and is akin to a civil matter. I would imagine that in the U.K. something similar is going on with the computers being seized. Anytime the government (in the U.S.) takes your property, they have to give you due process which means notice. Notice that they are taking the property and an opportunity to be heard on it. (another factor involves fundamental fairness but is a really easy burden for the gov't)

Just a few thoughts on the matter.....

Tac

They expect this to work??

[BBlinkk]

Even if they do pass this, remember who they are "banning" from computer... hackers. I'm pretty sure that these hackers will be able to use computers/internet anyways even if they are banned. If they are already committing cybercrimes, I doubt some legislation banning them from the internet (and any other blocks from an ISP) is going to keep them off.

Ignoring the ASBO will be a criminal offence...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a double bonus for anybody who thinks about ignoring an ASBO (court order) because they did nothing wrong. If it comes to that, I might as well be in prison and at least I'll have bragging rights if I nut the judge. I'd like to extend my gratitude to my government for their continued criminalisation of society.

Brilliant idea...

[g253]

... and really easy to put into practice : as far as I know it has never been possible for anyone, not even a hacker, to buy a computer or browse the web without a proper ID, so there should be no significant trouble enforcing this clever law.

Re:Brilliant idea...

[Meskarune]

you don't need an ID to buy a computer off someone or use the internet on an unsequired wireless network.

Won't do a thing...

[bhunachchicken]

"The UK government has proposed that suspected cybercriminals could be banned from the Internet or have their PCs seized"

Anyone who has been living in the UK for the past 12 months will know that all these guys need to do is say that restricting their access to the internet infringes on their human rights and they'll be back at it within a few days...

Re:Won't do a thing...

[Winlin]

Doesn't imposing punishment without actually convicting them infringe on their human rights?

How long before...

[Billosaur]

...downloading porn is considered anti-social behavior? Or complaining about the President or Prime Minister? Hate to use the overworn "slippery slope" phraseology, but once you open Pandora's box, it's awfully hard to close. Sure, some of these people, convicted or not, should probably have Internet/computer access rights revoked. But how enforceable is it really? If someone's convicted and goes to jail, fine, but what about someone who is only suspected? Are they going to then follow them around and make sure they don't touch a computer?

Re:How long before...

[Cro Magnon]

Are they going to then follow them around and make sure they don't touch a computer?

Why follow them? They'll just watch them on their cameras.

Re:Unbelieveable - step 2

[AviLazar]

"You have not been convicted of murder, but we are going to place you in jail for the next 50 years, w/o option for parole."

Discretionary powers

[mrogers]

The Blair government loves to grant discretionary powers to the police, ministers, civil servants and quangos. The problem is that these powers, once granted, can't be properly regulated - the authorities can always choose to overlook certain cases and enforce other cases strictly. This runs contrary to the principle of equality before the law. As Julius Telesin said, "What are 'laws' anyway in the Soviet Union? They exist only on paper, and in practice the authorities always do what they want."

Karl Popper argued against discretionary powers in The Open Society and its Enemies : "The use of discretionary powers is liable to grow quickly, once it has become an accepted method, since adjustments will be necessary, and adjustments to discretionary short-term decisions can hardly be carried out by institutional means. . . . governments live from hand to mouth, and discretionary powers belong to this style of living--quite apart from the fact that rulers are inclined to love these powers for their own sake." This concise description of the problem with New Labour's method of government was written in 1943.

Nazi States

[PenGun]

Yup good old Britain, my birthplace will prolly beat the yanks to full a full authoritarian state. Not by much I imagine. The bottom line is that these states think the country is far more importent than any citizen. With the amount of corporate influence in government these days it is not at all out of the definition to call them budding fascist states.

  Wonderful.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:Nazi States

[bi_boy]

Yup good old Britain, my birthplace will prolly beat the yanks to full a full authoritarian state.

Well it ain't called Airstrip One for nothin.

Re:Nazi States

[Anonymous Coward]

i invoke Godwin's Law.

did i win some thing?

It's stunning

[MojoBox]

Quite amazing how readily European nations give up there freedoms for a little creature comforts. Come on EU'ers, grow a pair! Take some chances in life.

Re:It's stunning

[Anonymous Coward]

Glass house, meet stone.

Re:It's stunning

[tehcyder]

Quite amazing how readily European nations give up there freedoms for a little creature comforts. Come on EU'ers, grow a pair! Take some chances in life.

Let me guess, you're from the US?

I owuld say that you had lost the right to lecture people from other countries on morality.

let's turn ourselves in.

[the_greywolf]

no, i'm serious.

when they realize that "hackers" are what make all their doodads work, they'll come crying back to us for help.

then we can secede from the rest of society and parcel out our own bit of land where we get all the fat pipes we want!

Re:let's turn ourselves in.

[davro]

Sounds good shall we have a meetup at Trafalgar Square, near the Nelson's Column.
Bring a laptop and "Hack" on your project or projects in protest.

It's becoming hard not to be a criminal

[Drasil]

I try not to do anything wrong, not because it's illegal or socially unacceptable but because it's wrong. It seems to me that this is just the next step in the increasing criminalisation of the public in western society. Sometimes I port scan someone when we are trying to get something working through our firewalls, I know my ISP frowns on this and could technically disconnect me for it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually illegal, but it's not wrong. More and more things that are not (IMO) wrong are becoming illegal, the laws are usully enacted to prevent bad things (ie. cracking) but also prohibit innocent activity. ID cards are another example, stopping terrorists bombing people is as laudable a goal as stopping B52s bombing people, but if I'm not an evil bomber and I don't register for an ID card I become a criminal.

IP

[Tenebrarum]

Am I the only person who thinks this will be used against "piracy"?

Re:IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Impossible ! You share your music/movies/pr0n/ so everybody on the Internet can enjoy it. How THIS can be antisocial ?

Hypocritical?

[Bladestorm]

This is very hypocritical considering government is antisocial and violent by nature.

Not a good idea, penguins ain't as fluffy as tux

[SmallFurryCreature]

Everyone knows polar bears live on the poles. Obvious, else they wouldn't be called POLAR bears. Yet there are no polar bears on the south pole. There are penguins on the south pole. Coincedence? I think not. In fact if you check everywhere where penguins live there are no polar bears. The only place were polar bears live is where there are no penguins. Consclusion? Penguins eat polar bears. Even that fluffy tux toy, I got one in my house and no polar bears.

If the meanest biggest land predator can't survive against a penguin change do you stand?

is a ddos a serious crime?

[ajrs]

'acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime'

if a ddos attack is a serious crime, is using a computer with known remote security exploits 'acting in a way'?

Re:is a ddos a serious crime?

[myowntrueself]

is using a computer with known remote security exploits 'acting in a way'?

Now you come to mention it, under the terms of the act, even turning such a computer *on* would be 'acting in a way'.

Importing such a computer or such an operating system would also be covered.

Hah, not even that good...

[mrraven]

It's not even that good. Bitter not guilty but convicted "hacker" equals "screw you guys" next time I'm doing it for real like identify theft for the Russian mob. It's almost like they WANT to breed a new generation where many are criminals. After all if many are criminals than a police state is justified, right?

Re:Hah, not even that good...

[alpinerod]

Well, the Russian mob is a lot more complicated than just plain old identity theft -- that's really small beans.

I guess they are almost pushing so-called hackers to either
  a) commit identity theft (for real, and just pretend you're someone else, so you can get ANY decent job. Let's face it, if you're smart enough to give someone grounds to accuse you of "hacking", that means you can at LEAST make average salary - say $40-50k in US or 20-30k GBP per year. But show me a job where you don't use email or computers for that? A job that a would-be "hacker" could do (not talking about construction, etc here)
  b) Just move to a different country and try your luck there. I've met plenty of shady people in my travels as a tourist and on business in the "emerging markets", a lot of who, I firmly believe were not in those countries because it was their leisurly choice, but simply because they had to run away from the law (alimony, debts?) back home.

Is this really what the gov't wants in the UK?

Re:Refugees

[loraksus]

They have had their equivalent of tea parties, several times in fact. It's just been a while.

It's a bit late now

[metamatic]

Where were you when the ASBO was introduced, before the last general election? And Blair still got voted in.

Re:It's a bit late now

[jez9999]

Voting for Michael Howard, who would've been much more lenient and sensible, and who really did stand a chance in hell of getting elected under Britain's non-PR electoral system.

Re:It's a bit late now

[kraut]

As a European in the UK I don't get to vote in important elections, I just get to pay taxes ;(

But for the record, roughly two thirds of the people that did vote voted AGAINST Labour. They only got in because of blatant jerrymandering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a charming historical voting system.

Re:It's a bit late now

[asuffield]

Where were you when the ASBO was introduced, before the last general election? And Blair still got voted in.

In the UK, elections are heavily influenced by old people (who love to stick their oar in, so far more of them vote, and also there's just more of them than any other group). Before the last general election, ASBOs were being used to get punk kids off the streets. Old people loved it, everybody else was pretty indifferent. They actually weren't a bad idea in that form.

Using them for everything else is a relatively recent invention. Looks like the government found a loophole in the boundaries of the law and are exploiting it.

Re:It's a bit late now

[Gibsnag]

Below the voting age.

Next general election I most certainly won't be voting for New Labour...

Re:It's a bit late now

[Cederic]

Along with 2/3 the voting public I was voting against the current regime.

Along with sadly almost none of the voting public I'll be writing to my MP regarding this Home Office proposal. Unfortunately it would be foolish to express to my MP the true natuer of my feelings on this matter, as threats of violence against the cabinet tend to be taken quite seriously.

You mean NOWHERE in the US

[ScentCone]

They call it "Homeland Security"

Please list some examples of court proceedings in the US that follow the template being described in the UK. Cite examples of US citizens that, only under suspicion of some "cyber" crime, have been subjected to a court order denying them use of their computer as punishment. For that matter, please detail the nature of the courts that are operated by DHS and which have such confiscatory influence over criminal suspects.

*crickets chirping*

Re:You mean NOWHERE in the US

[Bomarc]

Actually, it isn't the sound of crickets chirping. It is the lack of people paying attention. Eliminate the "cyber" crime, to "any crime", change "denying them use of computer" to "denying them civil liberties"....

Let's see:
  1. Any "sex offender" in the US. (Don't like them, but that isn't the point)
  2. Enter a home w/o warrant or probable cause
  3. Try to make a phone call lately?
  4. Have you ever been through, or looked at our so called "justice" system? Once you have, you'll find out that it is a bad joke. (officers that fail to interview witnesses, delays that cause critical evidence to be destroyed, complaints taken over the phone given by junkies, evidence suppressed that would exonerate, perjury, forgery - What more on this one?)

The biggest shame is the people like you are just along for the ride.

Re:You mean NOWHERE in the US

[ScentCone]

Any "sex offender" in the US. (Don't like them, but that isn't the point)

I don't like them either, but find that the high rate of recidivism among the truly creepy ones probably means that some of their sentences either aren't long enough or aren't leveraging technology well enough. The whole punish-them-after-they've-done-their-time thing is a bad movement. Better to say, in advance, that part of the punishment for (pick one: preying on kids, whatever) is life-long tracking or work camp residence or whatever. But that has to be in the statutes up front. I'm all for it, but the decision to do it can't come after a prison term is up, unless more bad acts are committed or the convict actually says they can't control themselves.

Enter a home w/o warrant or probable cause

Such as? Please site one that hasn't passed judicial challenge and review over and over for years. People like crackers operating in the US get busted after warrant-based monitoring. If you're referring to "imminent threat" situations where there's a hostage in a house or someone hears someone beating up his girlfriend, etc., then I'd like to hear your reasoning behind having to wait for a warrant before the cops can act.

Try to make a phone call lately?

Yes, and they all go right through, just fine. And unless I'm making calls to some other country, especially one that tends to be home base for non-stop criminal and terror operations and financing, I've got no concern at all about the call being monitored. Because they're not. Are your calls not going through?

Have you ever been through, or looked at our so called "justice" system?

Yes, because I've had my car broken into, been assaulted, had the family home broken into, had solo and organized criminals steal from the businesses that pay me, and spend a good part of every day dealing with attempts to defraud, crack, and steal from the many systems I have a hand in running. I've been knifed working crowd control in college, had a crazy professional PCP-user threatening my wife and me at 3:00AM... and I've been a witness in multiple criminal investigations (complete with threatening midnight behavior from suspects prior to trial), I've worked with the FBI on an interstate theft case, I've had to testify in an insurance fraud sting against a former customer, and I've had half a dozen county cops and detectives around my dining room table showing me mugshots while trying to wrap up a pair of notorious local B&E and autotheft specialists that I saw in the act (and which were out on bail in two days, and caught doing more of the same a week later). I've spent time on civil and criminal juries.

I have friends in law enforcement who become furious at having to let known criminals walk on technicalities, and know people in the intel and counter-terror community that have to hold their noses while very, very bad people do very, very bad things just out of reach of the boundaries within which they have to operate.

Does any of that count as enough exposure for you?

The biggest shame is the people like you are just along for the ride.

What, by voting? By carefully choosing the people that I think will most constructively deal with incredibly difficult circumstances, or do so with the least waste or least offensive form and degree of nanny-statism?

Hold up...

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the people saying, "this is unconstitutional and would not take hold in the US." you're forgetting something. When dealing with today's US government almost anything is fair game. When you can be held up at an airport simply becuase your name is Mohammed, thats a problem. When a state can actually stop you from marrying your same sex partner becuase of "moral" conflicts, thats a problem. When a state tries to ban "violent" video games because "they cause troubled teens to go over the edge." thats a problem. Now I'm not saying that some US Senator will read this article and start pushing the same issue here but with the way things are today in the US I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the next 5-10 years. Especially witht all the smoke thats blowing over net neutrality these days.

Penalty for UK hackers

[Jolly_Fat_Man]

This can't go forward! I don't live in the UK, but this sends an precedent for other countries that cannot be made. This opens the doors to abuse under suspicion. These penalties have not been made except under tirany.

The proposed Serious Crime Prevention Order...

[Anonymous Coward]

"New Powers Against Organised and Financial Crime",

Like Tony Blair & .gov giving knighthoods etc, for donations.

Not constitutional...

[Penguinoflight]

...and you think that will stop them?

Except that

[infaustus]

using the internet or credit cards are generally not considered "unpleasant things"...

The judge can impose a wide range of arbitrary conditions on the suspect without him being convicted of anything.

Re:Except that

[evilandi]

Show me a report of someone actually having been banned from "using the Internet" as an ASBO condition.

There isn't one.

Because those kind of wide-ranging orders can't be imposed as an ASBO condition. That kind of stuff can only be imposed as a punishment - parole condition or conditional discharge - after proof in court that they breached the lesser ASBO conditions.

An ASBO might prevent someone from "using the Internet to cause distress" or "using the Internet to observe children on webcams", but not "using the Internet".

Re:Except that

[Anonymous Coward]

Because those kind of wide-ranging orders can't be imposed as an ASBO condition.

Please read carefully.

This article is not about ASBOS. It is about Serious Crime Prevention Orders. These are only now being proposed. They do not yet exist. Therefore nobody has yet been affected by them. The proposals are (understandably) causing a great deal of concern. However, since you didn't even understand that we are discussing those proposals, let alone know anything about them, you have nothing to contribute at present.

Any questions?

random samples of Orwellian gobbldygook

[rs232]

"As financial transactions are completed ever more quickly .. this problem should be largely addressed by the ID cards programme."

"a person .. can be liable if he .. is capable of encouraging or assisting another person .. in relation to [an] offence he believes will be committed"

"would be liable where his conduct has the capacity to provide ..encouragement .. and .. believes .. offences .. will be committed .. but he is unclear which offence it will be [and] he is indifferent as to whether it is committed"

"we also need to ensure that those .. could not escape prosecution by arguing that they were not absolutely certain that the offence would take place."

"The decision as to what level of belief should be required for this offence will need to be carefully thought through."

"the powers provided by the .. Act, should .. lead to a greater number of convictions .. as .. those on the periphery should be persuaded to testify against their bosses in return for discounted sentences"

criminalize?

[The Creator]

Oh no, it won't be against the law, but you will be punished for it anyway. 1984-style.

Something very similar in the USA

[DeanFox]

We have the same thing here in the USA but it goes by different names. The most obvious is a Restraining Order.

Not identical but very similar to an ASBO, Judges impose the same restrictions as ASBOs all the time in Juvenile Courts with what they call delayed charges. It's akin to blackmail. The way they work here is if the DA figures he has evidence to charge someone with a crime, he can delay making those charges if X, Y or Z conditions are met.

I've seen a Juvenile Court Judge delay a theft charge so long as the Juvenile didn't associate with several of his friends, didn't go to a certain home, was home by 10pm, etc. The charges would be delayed and dropped if the Juvenile obeyed the conditions. If not, the charges would be made and the Juvenile would have to answer for them.

The difference is in order to get to the point of having ASBO type of conditions placed upon you, there needs to be enough evidence of a crime that would allow a DA to hold the charges over your head. Some say that's a big difference, and others call it a fine line.

That's our protection, I suppose, that the State has to jump through a few more hoops to get the equivalent of an ASBO here in the USA but they do happen. And, at least in Juvenile Court they happen all the time.

Inaccurate, biased

[Chris Graham]

Wow, there's some typical slashdot bias in that inaccurate summary.
The summary states how the new proposals are asbos, and may be given out by police without the courts.

However if you read the article you will find that these are NOT actually asbos, but something new. Asbos can NOT be given out outside the courts system, so we're not in a police state yet.

The issue here is with a proposal that is not yet law that would give the police certain powers. It's important to understand these aren't the "sweeping powers" that are a part of Asbos, but specific ones relating to the prevention of future cybercrime by suspects.

I don't agree with the proposal, but the summary smudges things together to make the UK look like a police state.

Re:Inaccurate, biased

[Cederic]

Personally I'd say the legislation being proposed and passed by this government is making the UK look like a police state.

I grew up believing in the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty". I still believe in it. The law as it stands does not, and is rapidly moving further away from that.

The police can already arrest you without cause "disturbing the peace", move you on without cause, prevent peaceful demonstrations, shoot you seven times in the head..

It's a constitutional right.

[ClioCJS]

How would you like it if crime X had a punishment that said you were no longer allowed to express your opinion in public? Or, if Crime Y had a punishment that said you no longer had 4th amendment rights, and could be searched any time? Or, if Crime Z had a punishment that said you are no longer allowed to practice your religion?

All of these punishments are unconstitutional. Taking away someone's gun rights is NO different. The only reason it's even legal (which, truly, it is not) is because tyrants agree: Gun control works. Just ask Hitler, Mussolini, or Mao Tse Tsung.

Yeah...

[BlackCobra43]

or you might wake up to find one day your government has been tapping your phone calls illegally, locking up innocents without due process (and possibly torturing them too while they're at it) and generally stating that they can ignore any law they damn well please.

too bad it's not in the US

[mediis]

"Under the Home Office proposals, the courts would have almost unlimited discretion to impose the order if they believe it probable that a suspect had 'acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime.' "

I wish this was in the US. Given the Scooter Liby imbroglio... we could arrest journalists for doing their jobs.

Could this also mean that M$ would change their ULA such that, if you don't agree, you will be arrested for piracy?

THOUGHTCRIME!

[PlusFiveTroll]

1984, its not just a book, its DOUBLEPLUSREALLIFE.

Re:THOUGHTCRIME!

[bky1701]

I think you mean "CRIMETHINK" ;)

Replace cybercriminal with racist

[HighOrbit]

So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?

Yes.. they do every day. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is enforced through civil orders. The state (Federal Gov't) will crack down mercilessly on overt racists (as well they should) who have never been convicted of anything. The civil courts can impose fines that will drive a discriminatory employer out of business. The civil courts can jail unrepentant business owners for contempt of the orders. *Suspected* members of hate groups are typically barred from military or police service and if found, they are expelled immediately. Do you have a problem with that too? I thought not.

You probably don't have a general objection to the state exercising those powers, but an objection of whom they are exercised against. You just don't like whose ox is getting gored in this instance. So step down from the hypocritical high-horse and realized it is the raison d'etre of the state to control anti-social behavior. When odious morons (racists, hoodlums, cyber-criminals) inflict odious behavior on the rest of us, we expect the state to protect us. This is just a case of you disagreeing with the definition of what constitutes sufficient anti-social behavior as to require control. We have a democratic process to define what those limits are. But not everybody prevails in democratic decision making and that is just the way the game of democracy is played. Be glad we (unlike the British) have a written constitution that at least limits how far it can go.

Americans have some notion that the courts are "protectors" of their rights. But the courts are instruments of coercion and their orders are ultimately backed by the sheriff's or marshal's gun. It's just a matter of who is controlling the court and making the laws. Sometimes you will agree, and sometimes you will disagree. That's the nature of a democracy.

It's All Over

[cyberscan]

I have lost all hope for any government/corporate respect for freedom. It MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what part of the world or in what country people live, it will all be the same. The government and corporate powers that be are determined to use EVERY ONE of us as "human resources." That is what we are to the elite, resources. When one unit becomes "faulty" it is simply discarded and replaced. People have become mere merchandise. People turn to corporate religion for answers, and these corporate institutions (for the most part) only preach adherance to the policy, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar," they forget to mention the part about "Giving to YHWH what belongs to YHWH." Hint, I'm not talking about throwing away even more money into the church coffers. What I'm talking about is one studying Scripture for one's self and forgetting the bullshit that is taught in the churches. I support many other methods (even ones I have proposed) of restoring freedom, however, most of these have weaknesses. Some of these other methods are listed below:

1. Voting for alternative parties and candidates:
The population as a whole is too ignorant and brainwashed to even consider doing this. Most of the people I have tried to convince to do this are simply stuck on the "Lessor of 2 Evils" strategy, and the thought that an alternative candidate "has no chance of winning." The public may come around if things get bad enough, but the fact that companies such as Diebold and others (as well as possibly corrupt employees) control the electronic voting systems may very well nullify any attempt to oust the corrupt mainstream parties. There are no paper trails with most of these types of election systems. Voting machines have been shown to be vulnearble to hacking, and even though such attacks were done from the inside, it is still shown to be possible.

2. Massive civil disobediance:
The population in "developed countries" are simply too comfortable to go along with this one. When civil disobedience reaches a certain level, the governments will simply imposed draconian penalties that people will simply do anything to avoid. Such draconian penalties may include long prison terms, the theft of all property of dissenters, and so on. The government-corporate powers that be now control most of the population's food supply, so people will likely cave to government-cartel demands. Even when the population succeeds, the government will only be replaced by another corrupt system. An example of this are the governments of Eastern Europe. Even though "communism" has been overthrown, the resulting government is run with strong influence of organized crime, human trafficking, etc.

3. Revolution:
The overthrow of any government is not a pretty thing. If and when things become bad enough, people tend to do this, and in many cases, they succeed. However in most cases, the overthrown government is usually replaced by another corrupt government where people of the same ideology (elitism) tend to come back into power. Revolution also comes at a very high cost such as loss of family members, friends, homes, etc. A prime example of this is the government of the United States of America. Many families urned against their own, and American fighters paid a dear price. Even though the reolution succeeded in ousting a repressive government, the resulting freedom only lasted for a little more than a century. The U.S. like most other countries are either police states or rapidly in the process of becoming a police state.

The reason why I suggest the Scriptural approach is because Scripures contain tried and true methods of dealing with repressive governments. Much of the first 5 books deal with setting up a solid government and the establishment of a justice system, welfare system as well as an agricultural system. The Messianic Scripure shows which laws were fulfilled (animal sacrifice, ceremonial laws) and which ones are still in effect. Other scripture tells of ways to free repressive forces and differe

Re:It's All Over

[DarkDragonVKQ]

Welcome to humanity. Yep, I've known this ever since I was a child. That government doesn't work as well as it should, that it's to regulate human behavior, and it will get replaced with another government which may or may not be as bad. But that will follow the same pattern. Hell my culture and history is full of this example. This country is presently called China and its most recent governmenet that will eventually be overthrown is the People's Republic of China. Though I'm living in the USA..which coincendantally will also collaspe on itself one day. I just pray that things don't turn to the worse till I have a chance to grow old with my family and die...sucks for my children though. Alas it is our free will that makes us great as it is our free will that is our downfall. If your religious then you have got to say God knew what gift was the best and worst to give us. If your not then, all sentiental (or whatever the correct word is) suffer from this somehow. My only guess of why aliens (if they exist) can work together is because they can all read each other's mind.

Re:It's All Over

[apotheon]

You had me until you got to the "throw out separation of church and state, force everyone to be Christians" part.

Re:It's All Over

[bky1701]

So you think we need to replace our semi-dictatorship with a semi-dictatorship-theocracy? Yeah, good job. You are just as corrupt and single-minded as Bush. If it hasn't come to you yet, the ability to not believe religion (or our own) is one of the main freedoms we fight for.

Also, blaming atheism for police states seems a lot like bad logic. You think because the communists made mostly police states that all police states are the results of communism and atheism, am I right? Hello! Stop ignoring the facts. No one, I repeat no one, in a high place in the US gov (and I'd bet the UK gov) is an atheist. What are they, you ask? Christian!!!! What is to blame for a lot of corruption? RELIGION!

Those EVIL atheists running their super-secret shadow government, forcing you to think logically... oh wait, no, most of them are the ones fighting for your freedom to NOT think logically in wany damn way you want...

Re:It's All Over

[cyberscan]

"So you think we need to replace our semi-dictatorship with a semi-dictatorship-theocracy?"

No, that is NOT what I said RTFA. I said forget about the corporate churches, etc. What I'm suggesting is for everyone THEMSELVES to learn for THEMSELVES. I'm talking about INDIVIDUAL STUDY, not government, churches, or corporations forcing anything on anyone.

What are they, you ask? Christian!!!! What is to blame for a lot of corruption? RELIGION!

You are right RELIGION is to blame for a lot of bullshit whether the religion is Christianity. Judaeism, atheism, Buddism or whatever. The Messiah in the Bible is the hardest on organized religion and the so called religious leaders. That is why I suggest that people read the Scriptures for THEMSELVE and bear out the information contained within and not depend on the corporate church or state to do their thinking for them. By the way, I am not a Chistian - for your information!

Re:It's All Over

[cyberscan]

"You had me until you got to the "throw out separation of church and state" For one, the constitution does not contain a clause mandating separation of church and state. If it does, point me to where this phrase can be found. It simply states that the government cannot force a specific religoin on anyone nor can it forbid the practice of a specific religion. "force everyone to be Christians part." FYI, I AM NOT A CHRISTAN, There are many aspects of Christianity as well as Judeaism that conflict to what is taught in Scripture. What I suggest is for people to read for themselves what is in this Scripture. This Scripture provides a model of a good government. This model was only followed to a large extent by the Phoenicians (an ancient allianxe between Israel, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt 1000 B.C.E.). The Phonecians prospered and left its mark on the entire world for an approximate 80 year period. Early American colonisists for what little they followed Scripture (not church teachings), also prospered. Now that much of the population is openly hostile to scripture, America is on the decline. Our servants (the government) has become our masters, we sow (families are forced to work so many hours) and others reap (get most of our tax dollars, etc).

Re:It's All Over

[apotheon]

Here's a clue for you:

"Christian" doesn't refer to someone that goes to church any more than "car" refers to someone that goes to a garage. If you worship the Holy Trinity according to the general concepts of the Bible, with emphasis on Jesus Christ as the Messiah, you're a Christian by definition. The term "Christian" refers to "Christ", not "Pastor Bill".

Here's another clue for you:

"Separation of church and state" is shorthand for the protections of religious freedom that are found in the Constitution. I don't think anyone ever tried to claim that the specific words "separation of church and state" appeared in that august document.

Here's a final clue for you, with regard to US history and scriptural teachings:

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation (to say nothing of the fact that you've failed to support your claims statistically at all, anyway, so even correlation is in question).

Get a clue. I've provided three opportunities right here. If you "get" just one of those clues, I'll feel that I've done good work. If not, I fear I'll just have to write you off as a lost cause.

Re:It's All Over

[cyberscan]

You are the one in need of a clue:

1. The Bible does not teach a holy trinity, and I do not believe in it. It is one of the bullshit traditions of the corporate church. The same goes for Christmas, Easter, the "Good Friday" death and Easter Sunday ressurection, as well as the Sunday tradition.

2. You talk about protection of religious freedoms but are hostile to anyone else who has different beliefs than yours. This is one thing that is wrong with much of the population - it has disrespect for those who believe in studying scripture. One even mentions the benefits of Scripture study in most forums and he or she can expect to be instantly attacked by at least two others. Would you do the same if I preached evolution? No, I didn't think so. Most of the population extolls diversity and tolerance, but they do not extend this same tolerance to people who believe in Scripture. Typical. The Constitution protects our right to believe or not to believe in a Creator. Unfortunately many people like to use the law and courts to push non-belief. A gay rights group can parade in front of a church, however, local governments will be much likely to allow an anti-abortion group to do the same in front of an abortion clinic. If you do not like public prayer, don't participate. I do not. If you do not like the display of the 10 Commandments, then do not look at the display.

3. Actually, there is much linguistic, heraldic, archaelogical, and scientific evidence that correlates history to Scripture. Much of this evidence is overlooked, ignored, or even discarded by many so called "scientists."

4. If I am wrong than so be it. I will live my life and die. However, if I am right and you are wrong, you will be ressurected to a period of judgement (right ruling- not condemnation) where you will be forced to obey Scriptural law. If you in that time refuse to accept and obey, then will be the time of condemnation. Are you afraid of death? I am not!

Re:It's All Over

[apotheon]

What Bible are you reading? I recall specific mentions of God, of a holy spirit, and of Jesus. There's your Trinity right there. I also recall specific mentions of Jesus being born (Christmas, though they got the date wrong), being resurrected (thus the "ressurection[sic]" to which you refer, and thus Easter Sunday, though again they got the date wrong), and a Day of Rest (thus Sunday, or Saturday, depending on which religious denomination's weekly calendar you're reading).

You say "You talk about protection of religious freedoms but are hostile to anyone else who has different beliefs than yours," but I honestly have no idea where you get that nonsense. It's your attempts to mold government in your narrow religious image that makes me hostile, not the religious beliefs behind it. Call yourself a Baptist, a nondenominational Christian (which is what you'd be calling yourself if you knew what the term "Christian" meant, I think), a Satanist, Asatru, Hindu, Taoist, Voudun, atheist, agnostic, or Ferrotheist -- I don't care. I'm just as likely to buy you a drink and talk philosophy with you regardless, all else being equal. It's when you start trying to impose a metaphysical belief system on the government, and thus on my life, that I get annoyed. Keep your dirty hands off my belief system, and keep your self-important belief system off my life.

I don't know why you're commenting on arhaeological, and other, evidence linking scriptural writings to historical events. I never said anything about the facts or lack thereof in the Bible, so you're on a tangent all by yourself.

As for your point 4, you obviously missed the point -- the point of the Bible, the point of what I've said, the point of trying to live with your fellows, the point of this discussion at large, take your pick.

Re:It's All Over

[cyberscan]

"What Bible are you reading? I recall specific mentions of God, of a holy spirit, and of Jesus. There's your Trinity right there"

The Father has the Name Yahweh, the Son has the Name Yeshua or Yahshua in some dialects. The holy spirit does not have its own name because the holy spirit is a POWER or force, not a personality. The places where it refers to the holy spirit as "he" is due to the fact that in the original language, the article (the) is of the male gender. Some languages do not have a gender neutral word for "the." Yeshua (Jesus if you prefer) was born somewhere between the Day of Trumpets and Festival of Booths. Jesus is a translated term (the letter "J" is only about 400 years old. This is one of the things that have been perpetrated by the corporate religious system.

"It's your attempts to mold government in your narrow religious image that makes me hostile"

The main reason why I encourage people to read the Scripture themselves and do their own research and study is so that they can have an informed opinion of their own rather than regurgitating the B.S. of the corporate religious establishment. Laws in free-er countries almost always reflect the moral standards of the population. The writers of the U.S. Constitution understood that only a moral population can be governed via a republic-style system. Freedom does not mean that people can do just anything that they want. This is the main probl;em with the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians as a whole believe that poisons such as Crystal meth should be consumed by anyone who wishes to do so (Yes, the Scriptures do refer to this - it is called sorcery). If crystal meth becomes legal, there will be many, many drug-crazed people out there beating children to death, bearing children with severe birth defects and so on. I am a foster parent, and I have seen how devastating illicit drug use is to children. The same goes for many other so called "victimless crimes." The Scriptures provide a moral compass for people. Without a moral compass, society declines. Nazi Germany as well as the Roman Empire are prime examples.

People who do not wish to live in places where there are moral laws are still free to move to places that do not have such laws such as San Francisco or Los Angeles, California. I do not wish to pay the high taxes that the governments of these places impose in order to cover the costs of immoral behavior. I have NEVER had the children of PRACTICING Christians or Jews as foster children, and I do not know of any other families that had to keep children of those who tried to lead a Scriptural life. ALL of the children I know of who are in the foster care system come from families who do not practice the principles that are taught by Scripture.

The Constitutions doe NOT say that people in government cannot pass laws based upon their moral beliefs. It does however, forbid governments from requiring people to worship at a certain church or banning the existance of other churches. What I want to see is this nation regain its moral compass. It is only a moral people that can governed by a republican (I'm talking about the form of government here - not the corrupt political party) government. It is not "my narrow religious views," as you call it that I want to see imposed on people. It is a moral government that I would like to see the people be blessed with.

Re:It's All Over

[apotheon]

(snip a bunch of irrelevant crap about the holy trinity) Oh, so you admit they're all mentioned. Great! (snip a bunch of really fruity nonsense about government) You mentioned Nazis. Godwin's Law has been invoked. You lose. Have a good day. It's really difficult to believe that you actually buy all you're selling. It's even more difficult to believe you try to sell this crap and have a positive Karma.

Democracy Empire

[Bob9113]

How do you turn a parliamentary democracy into an empire? Make every citizen a criminal. Puppy dog Blair imitating his master again, I guess.

Save Alan Cox!

[njchick]

Alan Cox should seek refuge in a more democratic country before he has his computers seized his antisocial work on an operation system that enables cybercrime.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

They have Democrats in Great Britain, too?

provisionally forgiven vs. provisionally damned

[smellsofbikes]

>Some say that's a big difference, and others call it a fine line.

I'd have to call it a big difference. In the case of delayed charges, the person has been convicted in criminal court, which requires strong evidence, and the punishment is deferred, perhaps indefinitely. In the case of ASBO, A: there is a much lower threshhold of proof (hearsay) and B: it might not even be possible to convict the person on the lower evidentiary requirements, but the person is threatened with punishment anyway.
In the first case, the suspect is forgiven of existing, verified actions, and in the other the person is convicted of unsubstantiated actions.

Re:provisionally forgiven vs. provisionally damned

[DeanFox]

"In the case of delayed charges, the person has been convicted in criminal court..."

Not exactly. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's worse in the U.K. but they have not been convicted. The charges have been delayed.

1. Grand Jury (Optional)
2. D.A Presses Charges
3. Arraignment
4. Bail
5. Pre-trial
6. Discovery
7. Trail
8. ...

These adolescents are intercepted between steps 2 and 3. Charges are not "formal" until the arraignment. The D.A. can charge anybody with anything for any reason. Including for evidence that would be thrown out later on in the process.

What the Judges are doing, in conjunction with the D.A and police, are charging adolescents but during the arraignment postponing making the charges official pending the defendant doing x, y or z as I explained.

In many ways this is an ASBO.

Granted, if the defendant follows the courts restrictions, that can be anything the judge dreams up, the charges are dropped. The restriction period is generally less. The USA version is 3 months usually no more than 6 - 12 whereas an ASBO can be years.

There are differences and I'd much rather have the USA version of an ASBO than the UK version. But, we do have ASBOs in our own flavor.

Re:provisionally forgiven vs. provisionally damned

[smellsofbikes]

I didn't realize that. My understanding was that the deferment was subsequent to trial, in the sentencing section, but I could very well be wrong.

Re:provisionally forgiven vs. provisionally damned

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that in the US you can tell the DA and Judge to shove the delayed charges up their ass and take it to trial. If you are really not guilty of anything then you are a-ok. It is much more like parole than this ABSO bullshit which is entirely unsupervised ruling from the bench.

The point about ASBOs

[Budenny]

Here are the essential things about ASBOs.

1) What is complained of does not have to be unlawful. It just has to cause complaints.

2) The remedy does not have to prohibit the behaviour which causes the complaints. It can prohibit almost anything that has the effect of making the behaviour difficult or impossible.

3) The prohibition has the effect of making things unlawful for an individual which are not unlawful for anyone else.

From the Guardian : "A teenager has become the first youth in Britain to receive an anti-social behaviour order that bans him from going to school. The two-year Asbo on Gary Addy, 16, stops him from going within 50 metres of any educational premises in the east London borough of Newham unless he has prior permission from the headteacher."

He seems not to have broken the law in school. He is prohibited from going within 50 meters of one, which is not whatever was complained of, and is not otherwise illegal. He is the only one to whom this prohibition applies.

You have to see this in connection with a number of other proposals, laws and institutions in the UK. Proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act would enable people with the wrong personalities to be locked up as a crime prevention measure. There have also been proposals to allow compulsory medication. There is a proposal for SCPOs (serious crime prevention orders) which will be a sort of super ASBO for gangsters. There have been proposals to track and intervene in dysfunctional families, to prevent future crime by children at risk. We already have Family Courts with wide ranging powers to break up families and put children into care and regulate access. They meet in secret, their decisions are not subject to appeal, and to reveal the name of anyone who has been before them is an offence. The proposed ID card scheme and DNA database will make almost all data any agency has on an individual, including health, available to any government agency. The various Terrorism laws permit confinement without trial of foreign nationals, and have started to be used to permit lengthier detention of citizens. Nor should we forget the recent proposals on the Civil Contingencies Act, which would allow any government to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree or the Regulatory Reform Bill, which would allow rule by decree without an emergency.

Henry Porter has written well on the subject. Have a look at his exchange with Tony Blair at

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1759 344,00.html

or his piece on ID cards at

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1 129827.ece

We do not have a police state in Britain. That is sometimes argued, but its quite mistaken. The laws are still administered by an independent judiciary with a strong tradition of individual liberties, and abuse seems uncommon and is remarked on and sometimes overturned. What we have is two things.

First, we have the most far reaching and thorough assault on the legal basis of individual liberties and parliamentary democracy since Charles I.

Second, we have now the basis for any future authoritarian regime to implement the basic structure of the former Soviet Union. It could implement preventive detention, classification of dissidents as mentally ill, compulsory medication, internal exile, separation of families, withdrawal of passports, suppression of freedom of association, prohibitions on publication or public speaking.

We don't have a Police State. However, the only thing standing between Britain and a Police State at this point is tradition and the goodwill of its government. Its not law or constitution. This is a lot, don't underestimate it. The question is whether it will prove enough.

A few points

[eipgam]

1. The article summary is misleading in that it gives the impression that ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) will be used. It is in fact a new proposed power called a Serious Crime Prevention Order. 2. The article itself is wrong on a point of law about the standard of proof required for ASBOs (note, I'm not a lawyer here, but I'm capable of reading the actual government proposal). It is correct in that they are civil offenses, but the standard of proof is higher than that usually required by civil offenses (due to the McMann judgement) which ruled that as the word "proof" was used in the legislation a standard of proof for section 1(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (partly referring to ASBOs) is that of the criminal standard. For section 1(1)(b) civil standards apply. As I understand it, both sections must be met for an ASBO to be granted. Section 1(1)(a) essentially requires proof of past acts of anti-social behaviour, and section 1(1)(b) refers to intent of future acts. The government is currently proposing a standard of proof somewhere between the criminal and the civil. 3. The government appears to acknowledge that the powers are wide ranging, and as such proposes only allowing the orders to be applied for (yes, they still need to go via the courts) via the High Court, and be appealable to the Court of Appeal. 4. It is up to the UK courts themselves to determine if any such powers legislated are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In theory I believe this could probably be heard all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (High Court -> Court of Appeal -> House of Lords -> EU) but its judgements are non-binding. Disclaimers: I'm a Brit. I'm not a lawyer but consider myself fairly well informed. I'm due to start work in a UK non-departmental public body. I haven't made my mind up on these proposals yet. Useful links: Government's proposals (also linked in article): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/new-powers- paper.pdf?view=Binary Home Office information about ASBOs: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos9.pdf

Re:A few points

[eipgam]

And this is what posts look like when you click Submit by mistake...

Re:A few points

[Budenny]

The fundamental question you have to ask is simple. If something is so bad, why is it not a straightforward criminal offense, and why is it not prosecuted in the normal way?

For hundreds of years now, Englishmen have had a defined set of things which were forbidden, and a defined set of penalties, together with defined procedures for proving violations. Now all of a sudden in the last 6 or 7 years, none of this seems fit for purpose. All of a sudden we have to give enormous discretionary powers to all kinds of bodies. We don't need juries. We don't need proof. We can predict who is going to commit offenses. We gesticulate favourably in the direction of 'peoples courts'.

If anyone had introduced the body of legislation that this Government has enacted, as a whole, and if there had been a national debate on it, it would have been thrown out.

Is it a coincidence, do you think, that the Cabinet that has introduced this legislation step by step is disporportionately composed of former members of the authoritarian left? Is it a coincidence that our former Home Secretary called Sheffield, when he was leader of local government there, the Peoples Republic of South Yorkshire, and twinned his city with Donetsk? Do you think he had their great human rights record in mind when he did that?

What we have here is a legislative framework which permits Soviet style authoritarianism. Not implemented in practice, but all the legislative underpinnings are there. Think South Africa as it moved into ever more authoritarian forms of apartheid. We still think we are free. We still are free. But we are free in practice, not by right.

Re:A few points

[eipgam]

These civil orders are the Government's attempts to address the fact that the UK is pretty useless at prosecuting fraud (a large number of newly proposed powers to tackle serious organised crime actually relate to money laundering). I read a newspaper article the other day discussing how the US is much more aggressive at dealing with fraud (think "Natwest Three" being led into court wearing shackles) and how this needs to be fundamentally addressed in the UK. I agree with your fundamental point about prosecution as opposed to civil orders, but unfortunately the current UK government doesn't like to sit down and write well thought-out legislation. Rather, it prefers knee-jerk reactions.

Re:A few points

[kraut]

> The fundamental question you have to ask is simple. If something is so bad, why is it not a straightforward criminal offense, and why is it not prosecuted in the normal way?

For the same reason that they have locked foreign "terrorist suspects" up for years without trial now. Because they can, and they know that not enough people care.

> Is it a coincidence, do you think, that the Cabinet that has introduced this legislation step by step is disporportionately composed of former members of the authoritarian left?

Nope. They've moved from authoritarian left to authoritarian right without passing go.

> We still are free. But we are free in practice, not by right.
How free we still are is open to some question. You can be arrested for wearing slogans on your T-shirt now, or for publically reading a newspaper with the wrong article, if it's done too close to westminster. The government can tap your phone, order you to hand over your keys, or - if you're not a UK citizen - place you under indefinite house arrest with (respectively) no, no, or banana judicial oversight. And there's strong evidence that while the UK government does not disappear people, it aides and abetts governments that do.

But we are still free by right.

Re:A few points

[Azeron]

Anti-Social Behaviour Legislation, Hey why stop at computers? I know a whole lot of "anti social behaviour" likely to lead to umm possible criminal behaviour

-Premarital sex. We all know that women who start having sex befor they get married are FAR more likely to become prostitutes, therefor any woman who flirts should be strapped with a chastity belt.
-Buying a farrari. Not only does this potentially lead to "premarital sex" but it also leads to speeding! we need to outlaw hot rods!
--Protesting the government -- This could lead to treason and (hopefully) "premartial sex" with some hot rebel chick

Obviously there needs to be a high standard of proof for freedom -- no wait I mean "anti-social" behaviour that possibly leads to criminal behaviour, and I am sure whatever standard of proof they have, it will never be quite low enough for "crime prevention"

Re:You mean HERE in the US

[Bomarc]

...
I have friends in law enforcement who become furious at having to let known criminals walk on technicalities, and know people in the intel and counter-terror community that have to hold their noses while very, very bad people do very, very bad things just out of reach of the boundaries within which they have to operate.


Cool, you support my position!

UK Laws

[mistralol]

Being in the UK. I have recently read of a bunch of new laws that have been brought in. One of these recent changes include. If somebody dies and you inherit their house you have 6 months to get somebody living in it or the goverment can they place somebody into your property who is on housing benifits. Ok so they are trying to target what they call "hackers". One of the thing i recently heard about here was a few guys who missed a ferry after a weekend of drinking. So they stole a fishing boat from a harbour and tried to get back on it. They got lost as you do in the dark on a boat if you dont know how to naviagte. So they called the lifeboat out etc.. They towed them back into where they came from. To make a long story short they were released from the police station with a caution.

Re:UK Laws

[tehcyder]

Being in the UK. I have recently read of a bunch of new laws that have been brought in. One of these recent changes include. If somebody dies and you inherit their house you have 6 months to get somebody living in it or the goverment can they place somebody into your property who is on housing benifits. Ok so they are trying to target what they call "hackers". One of the thing i recently heard about here was a few guys who missed a ferry after a weekend of drinking. So they stole a fishing boat from a harbour and tried to get back on it. They got lost as you do in the dark on a boat if you dont know how to naviagte. So they called the lifeboat out etc.. They towed them back into where they came from. To make a long story short they were released from the police station with a caution.

Excellent point there!

Re:You mean HERE in the US

[ScentCone]

Cool, you support my position!

In the sense that we probably both hold very similar ideals, yes. But not to the extent that we'd agree about the whether or not the justice system is entirely broken, or that cops all abuse their authority, or that the black helicopters have telephone-tapping super-spies rapelling down onto the roof of your ISPs offices, no. I'm not suggesting that you're wearing a tinfoil outfit - I'm going back to the original discussion, wherein the arguably nutso legal stuff being talked about in the UK (anti-social behavior blah blah we're taking your computer etc) is the same as in the US. It's not, and that's my point.

Re:Not a good idea, penguins ain't as fluffy as tu

[j-pimp]

Consclusion? Penguins eat polar bears. Even that fluffy tux toy, I got one in my house and no polar bears.

What does his noodley appendage say about this?

Lynx

[pierreact]

I remember some time ago, this guy that got sued by a company because he used lynx to visit a website.

The "admin" as some windows admins didn't know sh*t in computing, and so thought lynx was some cracker tool (cracker as the real meaning of it, not the mediatic one.)

So what's up with this new law ? The guy would have serious problems... Guy, i live USA soon to live in an other country and I'm glad of it, This country becomes nazist (As bad it is to me to tell this).

Evil Hackers

[junkmatt]

We still have a limited supply of these stickers left. Be sure to put one on your puter bfore they haul it away

ASBO's are Good and this sounds Good Too

[Stevecrox]

ASBo's are being used respsonibly and apporpiatly in the UK, take where I live, there was an area you didn't go if you went there past 10PM there was a high chance of either yobs trying to mug you, someone trying to set fire to soemthing or the incidental kniging (btw I'm not exagerating.) Since ASBO's have arrived the area is much much improved, certain familes have been banned from this and that and when they breeched the order were thrown in jail. Suddenly I'm not afraid to drive through the area past 10PM, its still not a nice place but is a hundred times improved.

ASBo's stop certain behavoir, in the park example, cameras can be set up and teenagers arrested, but as soon as they are out and probably during the behavoir continues. By banning them from the area, you clean up the place, ok you have moved them onto anouther one, but with the right ASBO you can slowly improve the whole area for the better.

There have been some rediculous ASBO's, I know one Judge ordered that a family wern't allowed within a certain distance of each other, because often when they were lots of crime would ensue. It was impractical and amended soon after.

A lot of people get away from court trials on technicalities and jail does not seem the detirent it once was, in the area mentioned above alot of the people in the three bad families had been in jail several times for ABH/GBH/Vandalisim had served many community hours.

Judges use a lot of restraint in their use heck many in the UK think Judges are often to restrained in their actions, I would imagine this would be used when the police know the individual is guilty, when everyone in the room knows the person has commited the crime, but when the person has managed to escape the issue through a loophole or one part of the police's evidence falls down around them. I think it will be used sparingly and since the UK now has a decent opposition party again, it may well be overturned if its abused.

Re:ASBO's are Good and this sounds Good Too

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they issue an ASBO to force people to take basic language skills courses?

Re:ASBO's are Good and this sounds Good Too

[Anonymous Coward]

it's all very well for you, but what about the other side? Would you like to be threatened with jail time for going to the park at night, having never been convicted of a crime? I thought not

In prison, I met this computer geek....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he was an RFDI and wifi networking engineer... and somehow, ended up only 2 rooms down from me.

Anyway, he was in there for, get this, rape, for 10 years. This guy was in his 50's, and like way stereotypical engineer geek, techie, no muscles, bookworm, etc. He couldn't rape a fly even if he wanted to. Apparently a girl he had been dating outside of his marriage, claimed she was "retarded", and thereby being retarded, could not give consent to have sex rationally, therefore, rape. Say what again?

One of the things the judge ordered, was that he couldn't touch any computers when he got out. I was like, what? Say what??? Did you crime have anything to do with computers? No.

I got a hold of one of those free AOL floppies in a magazine, that I was going to store my legal text files on if I ever got decent access to a computer. I never actually used it, and actually got out before I even formated (I won my appeal, kiss you sorry ass bullshit lying justice system farce goodbye). Kind of comical huh, an AOL disk actually a prized piece of contraband. That will never happen again on this planet. Anyway, I would taunt him with this floppy... saying... go ahead, you want to touch it, come on, its only a floppy!!!

What none of you geeks understand AT ALL about the criminal justice system, is that it has absolutly NOTHING to do with JUSTICE. Pound that into your head. Its a fraud, its a front, its a criminal organization and gang of thugs with radios projecting power.

The process works like this. The ACCUSATION. They accuse you of some crime, or jump on someone denouncing you, accusing you of some supposed CRIME. 100% of the time, whether you agree on it or not, you had absolutly no input on the passage of this law. You think you live in a country of consent, but really you dont, its a sham of mirrors.

THE CRIMINALIZATION AND DEMONIZATION PROCESS. Next, like a good citizen you make all your courtdates, and say as plainly as possible you did not do whatever it is, and if you did, whatever it was, where's the victim? It doesn't matter. The prosecution has had years of experience painting you however they want you to look, and they will do so. Its a slander game. In my case, they even accused my sister out of the blue of being a prostitute. I was like, what???? Where did you get that from. Like for real?

The did this same sequence in the inquistion, when they accused people of being witches, and burned them at the stake. Lots of innocent people died, because they had no clue what evilness they were up against. Simple folk for the most part.

THE SENTENCING. So, you cranked up the jury like you thought everyone had a right to, and lost, even though there was no evidence and it was all a bunch of bull puckey. Here's where things get DRACONIAN, because of federal minimum sentencing guidelines. Your lawyer that you shelled out 30,000 for, borrowed on credit cards, told you at worse since its a first offense, you might get a year. THe judge gives you fifteen. Your jaw drops. You're like whhatt???? You and everyone in your family and friends tell them in so many polite words, you're full of crap, here's all the evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter. The jury, who are a bunch of gung ho patriot retards, have spoken. Lets hope one day they are on the receiving end.

THE IMPRISONMENT. You are locked in a concrete steel sensory deprivation box. After about a year and a half, in this noisy jungle of violence and stupidity, if you are any reasonable rational sane person, you snap. You snap because you can't hear yourself think, because you're always under stress from the overcrowding, because your brain is starved from calories from the disgusting food, you snap because your roommate is a flaming gay psychopath with AIDS who wants you to pull shotgun bullets out of his chest with a razorblade. You file grievances on torture, but you are denied the grievance process. You speak plainly and clearly about how you are being tor

Re:Evil Hackers - where can you get this one?

[Anonymous Coward]

hell yeah... where do i get them... will look great next to my jinx stickers http://www.jinx.com/scripts/stickers.asp?affID=-1
on my boxen

i went to loftninjas.org which is on the sticker and didn't see any links to them...

RE: all the not convticted comments

[Anonymous Coward]

ASBOs are given to people who may not be convicted already of something in particular. If the person is considered to be being anti social, they will be convicted, and hence recieve an asbo... Just as you don't have to have a convicion already to be convicted most other crimes (I'm sure logical people would realise people could never be convicted of anything if this were the case!). The difference with this law compared to most others is that the definition of being of being anti-social is very open ended; The only news here is that people have decided that abuse of the internet is considered anti-social... THIS is the law that is convicting people for abusing computers/the internet... why are people outraged that people are being convicted without previosly being convicted?! They are being subject to their trial here!

Martin

Dammit

[bky1701]

Where is V when you need him????

Re:Dammit

[geminidomino]

You're about 4.5 months early.

Sure ways to identify a hacker

[happy*nix]

There is of course two sure ways to identify hackers. They are tried and tested methods that cannot be refuted by the accused. Tie the accused to a stake set atop a pyre of wood and then ignite the wood with several torches. Rationalization: A real Hacker will will not allow themselves to be burned and by means of some hidden technological device not readily available to the general public, will summon computerized assistance to escape the flames. Limitus Test: Escapes unharmed = Hacker. Burned to a crisp != Hacker Tie the accused to a large stone with a short rope. Drop said stone into a river or lake of sufficient depth to submerse the accused. Rationalization: A real Hacker will will not allow themselves to be drowned and by using some hidden technological device not readily available to the general public, will summon computerized assistance to escape from the water. Limitus Test: Escapes unharmed = Hacker. Soggy corpse != Hacker No amount of progress can overcome the "wisdom" of those with brute power unencumbered by frivolous dreams or imagination.

somewhere in downtown London, Oct 2006

[sepharious]

Policeman:"Oy! You there! You come with me."
Joe Average:"What's the meaning of this?"
Policeman:"You aren't smiling enough. And under the Antisocial Management Law of 2006 the penalty is a 500 quid fine."
Joe Average:"That's insane! I smile all the time! And when did a law get passed on smiling?"
Policeman:"It was passed last week. You really should take more of an interest in these things. And I'm going to have to write you another ticket for defaming a police officer, lying, questioning a legislative act, and not taking an interest in public affairs, all antisocial."
Joe Average:"WHAT? I wasn't lying! I do smile alot! Maybe not as much as some, but I do smile. And since when is questioning a legislative act a criminal offense?"
Policeman:"Well that was outlawed in the Keep Your Nose Out of Government Programs Act. And by the way, terribly sorry, but I'm going to have to arrest you now."
Joe Average:"Whatever for?!?"
Policeman:"Continuing antisocial behavior by questioning a policeman's word, arguing in public, loitering with intent to harass, and continuing to not smile."
Joe Average:"Well its pretty hard to smile when you're being fined and arrested!"
Policeman:"Well I suppose that may be the case, but you'll have to take that up with the Magistrate. Come on now, off with you."

Innocent until prooven guilty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, nevermind...

They still have judges in the UK

[shungi]

They still have judges in the UK who have some idea of fundementals. Recently, one such judge ruled unlawful control orders against terrorist suspects, saying that they were contrary to EU human rights laws. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0 ,,1808325,00.html

that isn't really in your best interests

[misanthrope101]

There is a danger in listing "not getting blown up" as a right. Rights are conventionally considered to be restraints on government powers, not mandates for government power. A freedom of the press means that the government has a limitation on its legitimate authority in banning you from printing a book--it does not mean that the government's job is to provide you with a printing press. Freedom of religion means that government cannot infringe on your religion, not that government must fund and build your church. By listing "not getting blown up" as one of these rights, you'd be saying that government has a restriction on their legal authority to blow you up, but has no legal responsibility to prevent someone else from blowing you up. The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on government power that the forefathers saw necessary for the preservation of freedom. It is not a list of free candy that someone must provide to you, but a list of things the government cannot do to you. Freedom indeed is not free--it requires limits to government power, which in turn may cost you and I a bit of perceived safety.

Re:that isn't really in your best interests

[It'sYerMam]

The Bill of Rights, though, does not just limit what governments should be doing, but what everyone should be doing with respect to other people.

Re:The point about ASBOs

[shilly]

You're absolutely right. And there's one other power that the State is attempting to grab which parallels the Soviet Union: internal passports, in the form of ID cards. These would, among many other things, restrict freedom of movement, as state officials could demand to see them as a condition of allowing you to go anywhere.

By Command of Her Majesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, there is no place to hide. It becomes obvious when you flip over a Canadian Maple Leaf coin and stare at the portrait of HM Queen Elizabeth II. It was minted there to remind hozers that, unlike the US, they haven't fought for their independence from the Crown, and are living in a dominion, which is a self-governing colony of the British Empire. Notice that the ASBO document in question was issued in Great Britain "By Command of Her Majesty" -- that's the very queen who is the head of state in Canada.

Re: "Who 'They Gonna' Call?"

[TaoPhoenix]

Did anyone else connect this with the story of the Chinese kids looking for Bad Stuff? So, is the UK going to "lease" that service to enforce their ASBO? And see the US's use of "Sweeping Powers".

About so called abuse...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I guess it depends on what you want the law to do for you. There effectively is a trade-off between freedom of the law and freedom of the people. The liberals advocate the freedom of the people.

To say that removing these alledged drunks, druggies, or whatever is wrong because no-one had proof is missing the point. The point is that the law was flexible enough to remove these people, simply because most people would object to the behaviour. It's just not something people want in their parks, legal technicalites be damned.

To a liberal, this concept is their idea of hell, because, as most will rightly attest, this has the great potential to be abused.

I disagree with the idea that as soon as the law shows any flexibility, it is being abused. I wouldn't call this case abuse. Don't forget the law is there to satisfy the people, not to be rigid and easy to by-pass.

But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[LanMan04]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
              charm.
  Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
  Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
  Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
  Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
  Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
                [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
                [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

Re:Not a good idea, penguins ain't as fluffy as tu

[Aceticon]

Everyone knows polar bears live on the poles ... Penguins eat polar bears. Even that fluffy tux toy, I got one in my house and no polar bears.

So you live in one of the poles?

money launderers, terrorists and paedophiles

[rs232]

"Credit and debit card firms will find it easier to cancel the cards of online paedophiles under a planned new law"

Like what was stopping them up to now?

"The move has long been urged by charities and card issuers"

Like who exactly?

""The amendment will allow card issuers to receive information on card usage from the police."

Why do the card issuers need to contact the police to read their own records?

"The issuers said this will free them to terminate the contract with the cardholder and cancel the cards"

What prevents the card issuers from terminating such contracts?

"With this change in the law our members will have the information they need to remove offenders' cards"

What information do you not already posess, to know who is accessing kiddie porn sites using your cards? The kiddie porn sites are advertising on the net, they have a contract with your company, your customers are transfering funds to such sites. What do you not know already?

So that's money launderers, terrorists and paedophiles all given a mention. Where's mention of hackors?

ROTHERO Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

DASCOMBE It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people.