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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"What you in for mate?"
"I got 5 years for violating my ASBO"
"Oh, whadya do?"
"The wankers caught me with an abacus"