Slashdot Mirror
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."
even if they've not been convicted.
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
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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/Three words - W.T.F.?
... could also have computer equipment taken away by the police"
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
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??
noobcake or noobmuffin? It is the same price...
I have a fundamental problem with this:
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.
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.
/cry
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!?
Guilty untily proven guilty.
My left arm is all scars and I consider that a valid excuse...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
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.
Am I the only person who thinks this will be used against "piracy"?
'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'?
Where were you when the ASBO was introduced, before the last general election? And Blair still got voted in.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
"As financial transactions are completed ever more quickly .. this problem should be largely addressed by the ID cards programme."
.. can be liable if he .. is capable of encouraging or assisting another person .. in relation to [an] offence he believes will be committed"
..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"
.. could not escape prosecution by arguing that they were not absolutely certain that the offence would take place."
.. 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"
"a person
"would be liable where his conduct has the capacity to provide
"we also need to ensure that those
"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
davecb5620@gmail.com
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.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
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.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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.
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.
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.
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."
Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...