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

[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

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?

[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.

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.

Feeling guilty?

[TheOrangeMan]

Guilty untily proven guilty.

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

[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.