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