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.

In other news

[Mikachu]

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

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?

[dr_dank]

Everyone here is missing the point. Asbos work and they work well, they're not abused yet and have mostly been used on complete assholes.

First, they came for the complete assholes. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a complete asshole.
then, they came for the dickheads. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a dickhead.
then, they came for the dingbats. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a dingbat.
then, they came for the schmucks. Who will speak out for me?

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.

More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office

[ettlz]

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.

Antisocial Personality Disorder

[Pancake Bandit]

Sidenote for anyone who thinks it's funny to call it "antisocial behavior":

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.

Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order"

[evilandi]

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.

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.