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
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
In other news, the UK government is proposing that acquitted bank robbers be banned from banks.
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/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.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
If the meanest biggest land predator can't survive against a penguin change do you stand?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
'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'?
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.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
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
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.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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...