Slashdot Mirror
EU Countries Closer To Mandatory Minimum Sentence Cap For Hacking
angry tapir writes "Hackers would face up to two years or more in prison no matter where they live in the European Union under a new draft law approved by the European Parliament's civil liberties committee. The proposed rule would prevent E.U. countries from capping sentences for any type of hacking at less than two years. Meanwhile the maximum sentence possible for cyberattacks against 'critical infrastructure,' such as power plants, transport networks and government networks would be at least five years in jail. The draft directive, which updates rules that have been in place since 2005, would also introduce a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment for creating botnets."
When we talk about debt its every country for himself. When we talk about corruption and murder is every country for himself. Talk about hacking ... OMG now we are a union of countries?
Unless it is done by governments or influential companies, I suppose. On the other hand, no exceptions will be made for investigating journalists.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
It seems that because the government is powerless to stop the criminal use of hacking, they attempt this to scare people off.
This will most likely be abused against journalists and hackers who only want companies to improve their security.
Some people suggest a breach of TOS is "hacking", like not using your real name of whatever. Or using wget to download a bunch of articles.
This is insane, we're all computer users nowadays.
I'd be much more delighted if this was about a MAXIMUM sentence cap!
The Compuworld article uses the term without revealing it's definition as stated in the EU draft law. Is this because it's loosely defined by the EU itself to act as a catch-all act in the future? That idea chills my bones.
so from zero to infinity?
How about all EU countries share the minimum wage, minimum pension and so on? It's a joke that some EU countries have minimum wage of 280~~ euros when cost of living is not that far off from other countries where minimum wage is around 1000 euros. Just look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage, what a joke.
The problem is we don't invest in securing the infrastructure and and expect technology to lower costs. At the same time these systems are vulnerable to 'hackers' they are vulnerable to attack by foreign states. It's stupid to arrest people who had they been operating from another part of the world would not have been arrested or otherwise gotten off nearly scott free. It's better that you use them to help fix your own infrastructure to the attacks can't be easily repeated.
Why, because of clickbait lie? Read the damn story.
Minimum sentence can be a fine, or nothing. But maximum sentence cannot be less then two years for hacking, and five years for hacking of critical infrastructure. Not to mention that European Parliament is a democratically elected legislative branch of EU, directly elected by member states' citizens. It's the most and arguably only democratic branch of EU.
That's a sentencing floor, not a sentencing cap. A cap would limit the maximum sentencing possible.
No, we didn't know. Originally we signed up to EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement), which morphed into the EEC (European Economic Community), then into the EC (European Community) in 1993, and in 2009 into the EU (as a political entity) officially (with the Lisbon Treaty).
That is the main beef in the UK. The original referendum only asked if they wanted to join EFTA, and free trade with Europe was a good idea. Since then everything else was essentially scope creep, until we ended up with the monstrosity that is the EU.
Nobody in my generation (or indeed my parents generation) actually had a say in any of this. Nobody gave us a referendum on any of the new treaties, or for whether we wanted further integration.
I guess that is why a lot of people in the EU (not just the UK) see the EU as undemocratic. Even the EU leaders are aware of this, as they keep mentioning the issue of "EU legitimacy" or "democratic deficit".
So they are aware of the shortcomings. Of course, their solution is more EU, with the goal of total political union, and I presume representative democracy via voting in your chosen MEP.
Of course, we'll have no say in any of this until it is presented to us as a done deal, at which point we can vote for MEPs (the UK may not have this fate, as its population has been clamoring for a referendum for ages, and all this assumes the EU doesn't collapse).
Nobody likes democracy unless it's on their side. The enlightened masses who see things your way are a boon, the dazed luddites who dare to disagree a real drag. Giving up some sovereignty can be quite handy to get things the way you want them without all those ignorant plebes standing in the way. Heck, the new arrangement might be quite popular---there's no reason everybody can't get something out of the deal. Of course, the problem with having a government of governments of governments is that, the farther you abstract the roles, the less connection the people in charge have to the citizens at the base of the system.
In this case, do they know anyone who does casual hacking, any whitehats, do they remember smart kids causing a bit of mischief starting off because that's what kids do? Of course, not. They have read the stories about cyberattacks and heard from their corporate friends that this is an issue and they will solve it at the only level and by the only means they are prepared to solve it.
And better stick in some minimum sentencing guidelines because who knows what those weird parochial judges might do if allowed to act on their own sensibilities.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
I fear that this could/will be used to clamp down on whitehatting/fair disclosure, perhaps simply just to avoid Govt. red faces, just as much as a deterrence/punishment for the bad guys.
But when are we going to get something like SOX for critical systems designers and operators?
"The X-rays on critical welds for your nuclear plant were faked; 5 years"
"The SCADA system for your nuclear plant is exposed to the internet; 2 years".
"You have an unpatched known vulnerability on your database which led to personal, private information being stolen; 1 year".
Yeah, I know it's fraught with moral peril, and we'd have to devise mechanisms to ensure that SysAdmins did not get hammered instead of their bosses, but until we do that, nothing much will change on the client side.
Wrong. The EFTA was a competing organization to the EEC. However the EFTA wasn't the hoped success, and thus several countries decided to leave it and join the EC instead (at that time, the EEC had already changed to the EC). However the EFTA never was morphed into the EEC, and indeed still exists, although it's more or less irrelevant these days.
Also, given that at the time the UK left the EFTA and joined the EC, the EC already was political, you cannot claim that it morphed into political after the UK joined. The UK joined well knowing that the EC was a political as much as an economical community.
It is laughable to talk of sovereignty with respect to Europe. The fact that the EU member countries surrendered a part of their sovereignty is what has secured the relatively peaceful period in the continent's history (and the cause for awarding the EU with the goddamn Nobel Peace Prize). The borders in the continent have had a habit of changing every 50 years, some even less. Most of the borders in Eastern Europe are just shy of 20 years old (redrawn from before the Soviet Union decided it needed a buffer zone). Some date back to the second World War, and yet they were only 30 years old back then.
The positive consequences of joining the European Union far outweigh the perceived (and often incorrect) negative effects, such as loss of sovereignty. So yeah, take the goddamn sovereignty if that's what it takes to stop shelling each other every 50 years.
... whatever
Why, because of clickbait lie? Read the damn story.
To be fair, the summary *doesn't* actually lie.
Even without having checked the comments, it's undeniably obvious that many Slashdotters would skim the summary, see the "two year" figure with respect to "hacking" and "sentences" and jump to the wrong conclusion. And my suspicion is that the editors knew this very well, so yeah, it's probably "clickbait" in that sense.
But if you're paying attention to what the summary actually says, it never claims that there's a minimum two year sentence for "hacking"; it says that there's a minimum limit on the maximum sentence.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The reason you don't get much say in it is because most of your voters are too fucking dumb/lazy to actually produce an informed opinion on the subject. All they see is oh no, we lost some of our sovereignty, we're less British now. You just know that whenever the subject of EU comes up, right wing fanatics are going to jump on it and declare it a war on eggs & bacon, pubs and football, because national pride buys votes. So moderate politicians keep everything they can out of the referendums, because they know a bunch of hacks are going to screw it all up, for no other reason than personal gain - hey look at me, I oppose this, vote for me so I can continue my fat cat lifestyle.
There is no rational discussion of "will this be good for us and the people around us", it's all just "what do I get?". If you started asking questions like "how can we make this work, so that in 50 years the bombs don't start flying again", then you might find your politicians willing to listen. They're doing pretty much the same thing in Denmark, arguing tooth and nail that this or that issue does not warrant asking the people, for the very reasons I stated above. They're not going to come out and say it, but you don't need many brain cells to figure it out. Especially not if you've been around for the last couple of referendums on EU, and seen the sheer idiocy of propaganda shoveled onto voters.
... whatever
Defacing a website: 2 years in prison
Defacing a building: kids will be kids
We DID. There was a referendum and the outcome was NO. That did not stop our corrupt politicians though.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
They are not making mandatory sentences.
They are saying, that the MAXIMUM sentences a country can give for hacking, must be at least 2 years.
"EU Countries Closer To Mandatory Minimum Sentence Cap For Hacking" is not the same as "The proposed rule would prevent E.U. countries from capping sentences for any type of hacking at less than two years."
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. It simpy mandates that the infimum of the set of individual countries' sentence caps be two years. The elements are the sentence caps and the infimum is the mandatory minimum. What's so difficult to understand about it?
Ezekiel 23:20
"Hackers would face up to two years or more in prison [...]"
They are facing between zero and infinite years in prison?
Living in the Netherlands, I did see the sheer idiocy of propaganda the last time they were willing to let us say anything about the EU. Whenever said EU is trying to increase its power - again - we're blitzed with a wide variety of warnings that if we don't do this, the sky will fall on us (or whatever the economic or political equivalent is at the time).
We could make it work so the bombs don't start flying again by NOT trying the exact same thing that has set it off every time before, namely trying to unite Europe under one rule. Though I suppose the bit where making that one rule a Common Enemy to everyone living in Europe is a new approach.
That's an extremely informative statement.
http://xkcd.com/870/
Wait what?
There is a difference in the approach to the unification "under one rule" - namely the lack of bombs dropping. I guess it basically comes down to whether you think sovereignty is worth holding on to at all costs, or not. I honestly don't see the benefit of isolation compared to the benefit of accepting, that in order to work together better, we need to not isolate ourselves.
You're right though, there is a disturbing lack of rational discussion about this. It is always either do or die.
... whatever
The reason you don't get much say in it is because most of your voters are too fucking dumb/lazy to actually produce an informed opinion on the subject. All they see is oh no, we lost some of our sovereignty, we're less British now. You just know that whenever the subject of EU comes up, right wing fanatics are going to jump on it and declare it a war on eggs & bacon, pubs and football, because national pride buys votes. So moderate politicians keep everything they can out of the referendums, because they know a bunch of hacks are going to screw it all up, for no other reason than personal gain - hey look at me, I oppose this, vote for me so I can continue my fat cat lifestyle.
Wow, what a bitter tirade! In one fell swoop you've shown exactly the problem with the EU and its supporters. You don't want democracy, you don't want people to choose, you want to decide what is good for them, and if they resist, or don't like it, then they are stupid/lazy/far-right-nuts. Democracy means giving people the right to choose, and includes letting them choose the "wrong" option.
You'll be winning hearts and minds with that attitude, I'll tell you.
And if you want to see a fat-cat lifestyle, try and peer into the live of an European Commissioner. At least the non-governmental fat cats got hold of the money themselves, rather than using my tax money to fund their lifestyles.
There is no rational discussion of "will this be good for us and the people around us", it's all just "what do I get?". If you started asking questions like "how can we make this work, so that in 50 years the bombs don't start flying again"
Why on earth would bombs start flying again? Even if the EU was dissolved tomorrow, I don't see why suddenly war would break out. I mean, people have been living together for a while now in peace, intermarriages, etc... Shengen and free trade did more to build peace than any other part of the EU.
I'd argue that war is more likely if the EU is being kept together by force. Forcing things together will work for a while, but increases the chance that when it does collapse, it will do so in a very bloody way.
They're doing pretty much the same thing in Denmark, arguing tooth and nail that this or that issue does not warrant asking the people, for the very reasons I stated above. They're not going to come out and say it, but you don't need many brain cells to figure it out. Especially not if you've been around for the last couple of referendums on EU, and seen the sheer idiocy of propaganda shoveled onto voters.
Again, politicians showing complete disregard for democracy. "The masses aren't voting for my ideas, they must be stupid/brainwashed/fascists, therefore I must not ask them". That will do nothing but breed resentment, regardless of whether what the politicians are doing is better for them in the long term.
So.. gain "unauthorized access" on a publicly available terminal/website/kiosk/library PC due to poor security and you get a MINIMUM 2 years in prison. This would include clicking Google results that take you into an "unauthorized" section of someone's public-facing website as we've seen time and time again.
But intentionally infect thousands of machines with damaging, keylogging, DDOS bots and you get a MAXIMUM 3 years?
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the information. I was under the impression that EFTA was the precursor to the EEC.
Still, AFAIK the UK only ever had a referendum on joining EFTA, so my point still stands w.r.t. on not having a democratic choice in the matter.
In 200 years I won't be here (barring some major technological advance in the next 60 years), so I guess that will be something that has to be dealt with by my kids or grandkids.
That is unless we go through the whole civil war like the US, where one side (either the unionists or confederates) basically get removed from the equation completely, leaving the other free to do what they want.
It would be interesting to see, but I can imagine a world when governments lose power with the loss of sovereignity and disappearance of borders, to be replaced with power blocks that hold no real allegiance to geography. Most likely a return to things like city-states, fiefdoms, corporations big enough to have armies and enough population to qualify as states in their own right.
Wow, what a bitter tirade! In one fell swoop you've shown exactly the problem with the EU and its supporters. You don't want democracy, you don't want people to choose, you want to decide what is good for them, and if they resist, or don't like it, then they are stupid/lazy/far-right-nuts. Democracy means giving people the right to choose, and includes letting them choose the "wrong" option.
I guess I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to extremist agendas that has nothing to do with the actual issues at hand. I'm fed up with talk of the dangerous brown people invading, I'm sick of listening to idiots mouth off about things they deep down have no fucking clue about. I'm sick of people forming their opinions from two lines of text on a billboard, or a 5 second spot on whatever news channel reenforces your viewpoint. Generally, I'm sick of uninformed neanderthals setting the agenda. So yeah, I do agree that democracy is the only real way of government, I just wish my fellow voters would use more than 2 seconds making up their minds.
Why on earth would bombs start flying again? Even if the EU was dissolved tomorrow, I don't see why suddenly war would break out. I mean, people have been living together for a while now in peace, intermarriages, etc... Shengen and free trade did more to build peace than any other part of the EU.
Why indeed? I have no fucking clue why, generally it is to support a handful of egomaniacs' personal view of the world, sometimes it happens to kick start the economy. Hell, I bet wars have been started over a girl or a spilled beer. I'm not making any predictions of what will happen if we abandon the EU. I guess we could look at our history as a continent and draw some conclusions. Who knows?
Again, politicians showing complete disregard for democracy. "The masses aren't voting for my ideas, they must be stupid/brainwashed/fascists, therefore I must not ask them". That will do nothing but breed resentment, regardless of whether what the politicians are doing is better for them in the long term.
The actual problem is that people aren't for or against EU, but are for or against completely unrelated issues, that via spin gets projected onto the debate of whether or not EU is a good idea. And that is what pisses me off.
... whatever
A possible motive behind this kind of minimum sentence cap is the fact that agreements allowing persons sentenced to prison by foreign courts to serve their sentence in their country of origin also allow said country of origin to reduce the sentence to the maximum its justice system allows for the crime in cases where the original sentence passed by the foreign court was longer. An example of what could happen without this: a hacker from e.g. Bulgaria is caught, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment in e.g. Germany, returned to Bulgaria to serve his sentence under the terms of a repatriation treaty, only for the Bulgarian justice system to say "oh, the maximum sentence for hacking here is 2 weeks" and release him immediately because he's already served that waiting to be repatriated.
Why on earth would bombs start flying again? Even if the EU was dissolved tomorrow, I don't see why suddenly war would break out. I mean, people have been living together for a while now in peace, intermarriages, etc... Shengen and free trade did more to build peace than any other part of the EU.
I'd argue that war is more likely if the EU is being kept together by force. Forcing things together will work for a while, but increases the chance that when it does collapse, it will do so in a very bloody way.
Up until I read that last part I was all set to argue against your post, but we have our Civil War that serves as an example of the bloodletting that can occur when trying to forceably preserve a union of desperate states. Still, it doesn't take much to get people at each others throats. All it takes is one nation that feels it needs more land, more resources, or simply more "living space" to start the shit hitting the fan.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Read the topic. It clearly states "minimum sentence cap" instead of "minimum length of maximum sentence"
So it's a minimum maximum sentence?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
A cap is an upper bound, so a "minimum cap" is plausibly a "minimum of a maximum". Terrible English, but not actually wrong.
Of course, this isn't an accident. The summary is carefully crafted to be deliberately misleading. As it often is on Slashdot. Maybe it's time to go elsewhere.
I guess I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to extremist agendas that has nothing to do with the actual issues at hand. I'm fed up with talk of the dangerous brown people invading, I'm sick of listening to idiots mouth off about things they deep down have no fucking clue about. I'm sick of people forming their opinions from two lines of text on a billboard, or a 5 second spot on whatever news channel reenforces your viewpoint. Generally, I'm sick of uninformed neanderthals setting the agenda. So yeah, I do agree that democracy is the only real way of government, I just wish my fellow voters would use more than 2 seconds making up their minds.
This is a tricky one. I originally hail from a communist country. Our communists had the same opinion, and opened the borders to massive immigration of people (brown or otherwise). Most integrated well (especially Chinese, East Europeans and Africans), however some didn't. Instead they kept to themselves, had multiple wives, and generally bred like crazy. ~50 years down the line they became a demographic majority, and when communism collapsed and the state was weak, they took advantage and kicked off a war of secession, which they won. 25% of my country was annexed, and countless of my people were forced out of land that they lived on for generations, not not mention the lives lost and economic destruction, just because we allowed immigration in the belief that they would integrate and we'd all be better off.
So there is some truth to the "Dangerous foreign people invading", much as I hate to say it. Just that the dangers may not be known for 50+ years. Some groups are happy to integrate and will do so. Others will not. Maybe if we managed to eliminate religion from the equation, even they would be able to, but religion has been with us for thousands of years, I can't think of a way of eliminating it (hell, even the communists couldn't stamp it out, and they were brutally athiest).
As for the rest you said, I agree with you completely. However short of banning television, I can't think of a way of stopping it. That invention has done more to damage critical thinking of an individual than anything else I can think of.
The only thing that could counter it is education, but what government would want to do that? An educated populace is one that they can't easily control nor pull the wool over.
Why indeed? I have no fucking clue why, generally it is to support a handful of egomaniacs' personal view of the world, sometimes it happens to kick start the economy. Hell, I bet wars have been started over a girl or a spilled beer. I'm not making any predictions of what will happen if we abandon the EU. I guess we could look at our history as a continent and draw some conclusions. Who knows?
So you have no proof that it would. You just fear that it would. I mean, most of the EU is in NATO, their armies are tiny, they co-operate on so many levels for so many years. If NATO disbanded tomorrow they would just form their own alliance to keep the peace.
Even if you had some nutbag with penis envy want a war, I don't see why the country would follow. We are past the days of kaisers, monarchs and dictators, where one person can go to war and the country will blindingly follow. Democracy by its nature is not a form of government that lends itself to warlike behaviour, as evidenced by the fact that those who can easily go to war have to either not be democracies, or have democracy corrupted to the point where the people don't have a say (e.g. the UK, millions protested against the iraq war, but the army was under direct government control).
The actual problem is that people aren't for or against EU, but are for or against completely unrelated issues, that via spin gets projected onto the debate of whether or not EU is a good idea. And that is what pisses me off.
Now, that is true, but that is very much due to a lack of critical thinking on part of the population. However, it is in the interests of politicians across the spectrum (and the rich) that they stay that way. Let me know when you work out a way of countering that, for I've not found one yet (that didn't involve a bloody revolution).
...I can imagine a world when governments lose power with the loss of sovereignity and disappearance of borders, to be replaced with power blocks that hold no real allegiance to geography. Most likely a return to things like city-states, fiefdoms, corporations big enough to have armies and enough population to qualify as states in their own right.
You don't have to imagine. We're there already. It is corporations and pirates that create and destroy governments now. In the most basic sense, it has always been that way.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...oh no, we lost some of our sovereignty, we're less British now.
I'll believe that when they learn how to cook... or produce a motorcycle that doesn't leak oil all over your driveway.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You must be new here, it is a well known fact that /. editors are incapable of editing even a three word sentence without screwing up. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
At least the non-governmental fat cats got hold of the money themselves, rather than using my tax money to fund their lifestyles.
The hell they did. They're stealing the money out of your bank account as we speak. Then there's all those nice subsidies they receive courtesy our tax dollars (euros). The "non-governmental" fat cats are using the government to do it. Since they own the government, I guess we shouldn't expect anything less from them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And if you want to see a fat-cat lifestyle, try and peer into the liver of an European Commissioner. ;-)
TFTFY
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Yeah, but they are minor actors. The major power is still with states. I meant a time when non-state actors are more powerful than governments.
The day you can buy off the shelf manufacturing technology that can produce weapons of mass destruction will probably be the tipping point. The ability of anyone in a garage to put together a nuke sure will herald an interesting time for humanity. We'll either quickly learn to be a very responsible and fair race, or we will probably vanish.
Rest assured we are getting there, but I think its a couple of decades off (barring a change in direction, or an acceleration of wealth transfer and/or manufacturing technology).
Hell, I bet wars have been started over a girl or a spilled beer.
Being a longtime resident of Belgium I'd say that spilled beer is a perfectly legit reason for starting a war, unless by beer you mean that discolored water that is referred to as beer in the US.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Thanks to the EU crisis, so many French, Italians and Greeks have come here, that the quality of food round my local areas has improved dramatically.
And new cars and motorcycles don't leak oil, primarily because the British aren't allowed to make the engines anymore :o)
Up until I read that last part I was all set to argue against your post,
Oh come now, debates are good! :)
but we have our Civil War that serves as an example of the bloodletting that can occur when trying to forceably preserve a union of desperate states.
Trust me I know, my country of origin went through a rather bloody civil war, difference is in the US the unionists won, there the confederates did.
Still, it doesn't take much to get people at each others throats. All it takes is one nation that feels it needs more land, more resources, or simply more "living space" to start the shit hitting the fan.
The European solution to this was free trade and free movement of people. Allows the whole thing to grow (and shrink) organically. Based on your logic, a nation will go to war when its demand for resources cannot be met any other way (war itself is very resource intensive, and only a good idea if the winnings are greater than the costs).
The European solution is typically capitalist. You can have all the land/resources you need, but you'll have to pay for it.
The major power is still with states.
No, the state belongs to and is part of the corporation. It was set up by the corporation for the corporation.
I meant a time when non-state actors are more powerful than governments.
*cough* Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Bayer, Monsanto, Nestle, BP, Shell Oil, IBM, AT&T, Union Carbide (they still around?)... Need I go on? These are the people who make the rules for the state to enforce.
There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today!...There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That's assuming you lot are sober enough to march in the right direction ;-)
Loved Belgium myself, the museums, waffles and beer (wow, especially the beer) were heavenly. I just can't see how anyone is ever sober enough to actually do what they have to, which might explain a lot about the nature of EU functioning :-P
What's democratic about the EU telling sovereign nations that they have to send people to prison, even when they don't want to?
The sooner we're out of this totalitarian institution the better. They can't even run a fucking currency properly and they're telling nations how to run their justice systems? Absurd.
All done with the blessing of the government. So we are still stuck with politicians not looking out for us, and serving their own interests.
I was referring more to those who actually worked hard and built businesses that allowed them a comfortable life. Not the ultra ultra rich who control the worlds money supply and otherwise got rich by screwing over others.
Read the topic.
I *did* read the topic- and the summary- which is more than most people bothered to do.
It clearly states "minimum sentence cap" instead of "minimum length of maximum sentence"
Yes- the "cap" referred to was a cap on the maximum length of the sentence. By requiring the cap to be at or above a certain length, they're forcing a minimum length on the maximum imposable sentence, e.g. no country can say "we'll set a cap on the *maximum* sentence for hacking at 18 months".
Perhaps you misunderstood my intention, as I was paraphrasing what the summary said for those who had already misinterpreted the original wording. The meaning is the same, even if the summary is better English... for people who bothered to read it, that is!
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You're not being fed misinformation, at least not with this story. As I said, the summary *was* perfectly correct, and it wasn't even misleading... assuming you had a moderate level of intelligence and were paying attention to what it actually said, rather than hurriedly skimming and coming to a kneejerk conclusion based on what you'd *expected* it to say.
It's just that one gets the feeling that the editors ran this knowing how many people would fall into the latter category and get a well-posted discussion going before someone corrected the idiots.
If anything, that reflects more badly on the Slashdot readers than the editors. While Slashdot has undeniably been guilty of putting a sensationalist and misleading slant on some stories in recent times, if you think you were misinformed in this case, then perhaps you should take a look at your own reading comprehension.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Of course with the 'blessing' of the government. It exists to serve. And we we'll never know if we are stuck with these politicians until we at least make a feeble effort to vote them out. The ball is in our court, and so far we have dropped it every time.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I suppose the summary doesn't actually lie because it's incoherent.
So there is some truth to the "Dangerous foreign people invading", much as I hate to say it. Just that the dangers may not be known for 50+ years. Some groups are happy to integrate and will do so. Others will not. Maybe if we managed to eliminate religion from the equation, even they would be able to, but religion has been with us for thousands of years, I can't think of a way of eliminating it (hell, even the communists couldn't stamp it out, and they were brutally athiest).
As for the rest you said, I agree with you completely. However short of banning television, I can't think of a way of stopping it. That invention has done more to damage critical thinking of an individual than anything else I can think of.
An angle I had not fully considered, so thank you for providing a new point of view. I think the problems you descibe have very little to do with the fact that people immigrated to your country. They we invited in and left to their own devices, that is a failure of integration not of "brown people" or any other kind of people. My objection is the projection that anyone not like us must be breeding like rabbits and are to be shunned/shot/denied entrance - in order to avoid what you describe, we shun the world around us. That is us failing as human beings.
Religion is, as far as I can tell, the cause of pretty much all of the world's troubles. There might be other causes layered on top of it, but at the root we have a tendency to define "our culture" from our shared religion, and cultural differences underlie most of the conflicts on the globe. We can't get rid of religion, but we can push it to the side where it does not have an influence on lives other than those who opt-in. I think education plays a vital role in this.
By expanding the reach of the EU, we first of all set a stage where differences can be discussed without drawing weapons, we also set a stage where differences are not capital offenses. There are other fora for discussions, but the EU is the only one not spawned from a militaristic standpoint (UN and NATO would be of that category), a property I very much applaud. For the benefits of unification, I am very willing to let go of my national pride, and accept the massive amounts of red tape it takes to govern a united Europe, because as you say, I fear where we are headed if we don't start working together, not just in Europe, but as a planet. I know where we have been, and by all accounts that wasn't pretty - so to me the solution is not in going back to something we have tried before, but moving forward with a new construction.
The only thing that could counter it is education, but what government would want to do that? An educated populace is one that they can't easily control nor pull the wool over.
That is an overly bleak view. I don't believe governments in western Europe has come to that point, not even close. Other governments might be, and I see no solution to this yet. What I do see is that the guns we employ right now aren't really helping either, nor the mentality of isolation.
The actual problem is that people aren't for or against EU, but are for or against completely unrelated issues, that via spin gets projected onto the debate of whether or not EU is a good idea. And that is what pisses me off.
Now, that is true, but that is very much due to a lack of critical thinking on part of the population. However, it is in the interests of politicians across the spectrum (and the rich) that they stay that way. Let me know when you work out a way of countering that, for I've not found one yet (that didn't involve a bloody revolution).
The solution is two-fold: First of all, a voter must prove basic knowledge of the issues he/she is voting on, a voter's license if you will. Second, remove individuals from politics and let ideas, solutions and plans stand on their own. If voters knew what they were doing and w
... whatever
I've never been the the US to drink their legendary warm piss! I live in Denmark - we know how to make beer, well some of us, I personally have no clue. Drink it I do know how to do. I guess I could see the argument that would lead to a war based on spilled beer, so I retract that comment.
Never been to Belgium, myself and a couple of co-workers took a road trip south but we accidently went straight to Amsterdam (when it was still legal for "foreigners" to smoke in their coffee shops), after that we didn't have the wits to drive anywhere else :-)
... whatever
If only term "hacking" wouldn't be so easy to interpret however you want to. Oh you mistyped your username and our system crashed - haxor! Oh, you discovered a vulnerability in our system, even though you didnt take advantage of it - haxor! Oh your grandmom axidentally connected to neighbours open wifi - haxor! To the prison with the lot of you!
If the end result is misery and unemployment it will end regardless.
Kindly quote where it says that. Again, according to the source (instead of sensationalist lie used in the topic) there is no mandatory minimum sentence. A nation state may adapt a minimum sentence of no punishment.
I'm guessing you're the standard anti-EU nutjob that happily swallows whatever lies are being fed to him without even bothering to look at the source to see that he's being told a bold faced lie.
But they can set the minimum sentence to zero. Which kills your entire perversion of truth.
That's correct, the sentences as written in the summary are nearly meaningless. They specify a sentence of between zero and infinity years.
"...Meanwhile the maximum sentence possible for cyberattacks against 'critical infrastructure,' such as power plants, transport networks and government networks would be at least five years in jail."
Since "maximum" means "no more than" and "at least" means "minimum", they have specified a minimum of the maximum... which means, there is no maximum of the maximum specified. And there's no minimum specified, either. So the rules don't specify either minimum or maximum.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
An angle I had not fully considered, so thank you for providing a new point of view.
You're very welcome, it is always nice to consider different points of vew. Far too many people are stuck in their narrow minded views, so it is nice to find people with open minds to discuss with :)
I think the problems you descibe have very little to do with the fact that people immigrated to your country. They we invited in and left to their own devices, that is a failure of integration not of "brown people" or any other kind of people.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. We tried very hard to integrate them, so much time, effort and money went into trying to integrate them that the rest of the country was complaining about the costs of it all (it was driving them to ruin), but they didn't want to integrate. Short of forcing them to integrate at gunpoint, or kicking them out, what were the alternatives? We are talking multiple generations living there, who it turns out had no interest in integrating.
You are working on the assumption that those that immigrate want to become citizens, integrate properly of said country and add to its culture, etc... I think this is a nice idea, but somewhat idealistic.
As I said, lots of other races came, settled and integrated very well in the country, a lot of them of far different skin colour than us natives, with little to no problems at all. So it isn't that we didn't try, it is just that for integration to work, both parties must be willing to work for it, like in any relationship really (from two people, onwards to societies).
My objection is the projection that anyone not like us must be breeding like rabbits
This is as easy to find out via birth records, in our case the select group was having 4x the birth rate of the rest of the country, which actually drove region into poverty, causing unrest and eventual war.
My point is that this is easily provable with facts, so nobody should be able to claim the above unless it is actually happening.
and are to be shunned/shot/denied entrance
Shunned/shot never, that is inhuman. However I don't see a problem with denying entrance. If we had denied entrance unless the immigrants agreed to integrate or assimilate (e.g. the US policy) then maybe we would not have had this mess later on.
- in order to avoid what you describe, we shun the world around us. That is us failing as human beings.
I will admit, I don't quite understand. By not allowing free migration unchecked, we are failing as human beings?
Religion is, as far as I can tell, the cause of pretty much all of the world's troubles. There might be other causes layered on top of it, but at the root we have a tendency to define "our culture" from our shared religion, and cultural differences underlie most of the conflicts on the globe. We can't get rid of religion, but we can push it to the side where it does not have an influence on lives other than those who opt-in. I think education plays a vital role in this.
True, but I would argue that religion is more a symptom than a cause. Ones allegence to a religion is nothing more than allegience to a tribe. Humans are descended from Animals who by their very nature are tribal. This is what has worked for us for tens of thousands of years, it is part of our evolutioniary development, and I don't think education could eradicate it. Simply put, I believe the average human tribal matrix looks like this (in order of strength/importance of loyalty):
* Blood Family + Mate (so your direct family, and partner, kids if you have any)
* Extended Famliy/Friends
* Your religion
* Your local region
* Your country
* Friendly countries/Alliances/shared cultures
* The rest.
I am simplifying this, and I will admit that in liberal western worlds, things like the family unit have brok
So slashdot needs a minimum maximum of two word sentences in the summaries?
But they can set the minimum sentence to zero.
Er... yeah. We *know* that. No-one claimed otherwise. What's your point?
The story had nothing to do with the minimum sentence; it had to do with the maximum possible sentence (i.e. the cap).
Specifically, EU countries could not set the maximum possible sentence (i.e. the cap) to less than two years. Hence a "hacker" could face up to two years (or more) in prison.
With the emphasis on the phrase "up to".
Comprende?
Which kills your entire perversion of truth.
I'm not sure how you think something I never claimed "kills" what I said.
Also, hysterically screeching phrases like "your entire perversion of truth" makes you sound like one of the kneejerk idiots I was referring to above.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I suppose the summary doesn't actually lie because it's incoherent.
The summary is perfectly clear and comprehensible if you stop and read what it actually says. The problem is that most people didn't, they skimmed it and came to the wrong conclusion based on a kneejerk response.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
How about emphasising "or more" too? Because "up to two years or more" means any number (some might say any number apart from exactly two).
You're from Barcelona? That explains it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
With the emphasis on the phrase "up to".
How about emphasising "or more" too?
Because I was replying to a post in which the OP said
But they can set the minimum sentence to zero.
Well, yes. "Up to" includes zero, that was my point.
"up to two years or more" means any number (some might say any number apart from exactly two).
While this is logically correct if one takes an intentionally pedantic view of what I said, it misses the point and in fact is misleading.
While a cap could (in theory) be set at any arbitrary value (provided X >= 2) in legislation, for the person in court, X will be a fixed maximum possible sentence. (Which is of course the point of a cap).
While it may be open to interpretation, the way you phrased things could (possibly) be taken to imply that a person in court for hacking could be facing a sentence of any length. Which wouldn't be the case.
Comprende?
You're from Barcelona?
No, I'm from Madrid. :-P
That explains it.
Explains what? How I correctly interpreted the summary and story when many people didn't manage to? I... really don't think it does, you know. :-)
Seriously, I understand exactly what insult-via-70s-sitcom-reference you're trying to make, it just seems that you wanted an excuse to imply I was stupid without having any concrete justification for doing so!
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The number of wars it had was lower than the control group (same countries but which didn't have the EU) by how much? What significance level does that come out as?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I did not, but now I realize. But this is not just national sovereignty, this is people sovereignty, which means democracy in the end.
Each time the EU moves sovereignty from member state to the Union, people sovereignty lost at member state level is never re-created at the Union level. We elect a european parliament that cannot propose directives, cannot have the last word in legislative process (except for killing a directive), and does not vote budget
EU political project is to destroy democracy, this is obvious for me now. I wish we go back to a confederation of sovereign nation that cooperate on chosen subjects
On what treaty is this based? I though criminal law was a member state competence. When did it change?
As I said, lots of other races came, settled and integrated very well in the country, a lot of them of far different skin colour than us natives, with little to no problems at all. So it isn't that we didn't try, it is just that for integration to work, both parties must be willing to work for it, like in any relationship really (from two people, onwards to societies).
I find it hard to believe that a segment of a population over a 50 year period has the ability to act in a coordinated manner, as you describe. I think you might be a little bit biased by your experiences. That is of course the point of experience, but I'm concerned that it won't translate very well. In any case, I wasn't talking about immigration when I mentioned brown people, I was poking at the right wing slackjaws who seem to pull out the fear of anyone different as an argument to why we need to isolate ourselves more. :)
I find that kind of attitude to be inhumane, and that is why it feels to me like we are failing as humans. What truly separates us from them is a line on a piece of paper, and sometimes the color of our skin - the rest is learned. That is why I believe it to be possible to co-exist, regardless of race and culture. And yes that is hugely idealistic, but I see no problem with that at all, and I certainly see no problem working towards that goal. My initial take on it was not to open our borders and let anybody in, but to expand the EU to include people where they live now. Subtle difference I fear might have gotten a little lost in all my other ramblings
Borders drawn on our globe are quite arbitrary, which was what I was trying to point out originally. In Europe borders have been redrawn whenever a ruler decided they needed more space/taxable income/subjects - and had the power to enact the change in borders. To the people living in Europe at the present time, the borders may as well have been set by the roll of a dice, which to me makes the notion of "nationality" laughable. I'm no more danish than the people living in southern Sweden, the difference is just that the Swedish army kicked our ass hundreds of years ago and took back the land, thereby changing the border and making the area Swedish. The same situation holds for pretty much any nation on the European continent.
Left wing bias in schools? Yes, we had a story about that here not so long ago, where members of a right wing party's youth division were being mocked in school, and looked down upon even by their teachers. I havn't seen any of that myself, but it's been a while since I last set foot on school grounds, so what do I know?
I fully agree with you that the EU as it looks now is a cumbersome beast of less than ideal value. The red tape I am willing to accept is a fair bit less than the amount present now. But I think you'd be kidding yourself if you think the red tape would go away just by disbanding the EU, it would just become invisible to the common man. As it is now, the red tape is clearly visible, and we have a say in how it works.
The free trade and free movement of workers is fine, but it only applies inside the EU. Expanding the EU to include more nations would afford those advantages to more people, I see that as a good thing. Clearly EUs neighbor states see that as an advantage too (Turkey for instance). And since there are rules that need to be followed in order to join the EU, we can, by sheer willingness to include more in our little club, enact our will on them - without drawing weapons.
Guns are a last resort, they are not made to help, they are there to force your will upon others. I don't see that ever going away (interesting question, what would happen if two EU members ended up in a state of war with each other? Would the rest intervene? In what way? Would they pick a side? What if support is split for the warring parties within the EU?)
Interesting, although that could happen with or without the EU. I believe
... whatever
People should never interfere with another's computer or control it without explicit permission any more than they should have non-consensual sexual intercourse with that person. Violating someone's mind-space should be a crime, and how one is allowed to influence the mind of another should be tightly regulated. If you do not give me consent to play on your computer, it should be a crime to do so. If you give me certain bounds within which to play, it should be criminal to break those bounds. Only when full consent to break things is given should I be allowed to do the hardcore scary stuff on your computer. Equally, software companies should not be allowed to have any say on what a person does with their computer except by unforced mutual consent. Basically, software is like sex, and should only be exchanged when there is genuine mutual consent.
John_Chalisque
I find it hard to believe that a segment of a population over a 50 year period has the ability to act in a coordinated manner, as you describe.
You don't need the entire segment to co-ordinate for this to work, just the power-hungry minority at the top. In fact I'm pretty sure most of the population didn't care either way, as long as they could live in peace and prosper. For example, the same can be said for Syria. I really doubt that the majority want a civil war, or want to split the country up, etc... but you only need well armed minorities (usually backed by foreign proxies) at the top to fight and the rest either follows, runs away or gets caught in the crossfire.
I think you might be a little bit biased by your experiences. That is of course the point of experience, but I'm concerned that it won't translate very well.
Of course I am biased by my experiences, it would be foolish not to be, just like you are biased (I presume) by yours. As long as you are aware of your bias and are willing to reason with those who disagree, I see no problem with it.
After all, once upon a time I was a left-winger (remember, my entire country was communist, so everyone was pretty much a party member), but experiences of life made me realise some fundamental truths about the human condition, and why communism will never succeed (unless we evolve/develop into it). As a result I ended up swinging to the right (but not as far as the rest of my country, which has swung so far right that they seem to live in some xenophobic paranoia that any immigrant we let in will eventually demand succession on whichever hunk of land they decide to live on. For a country of many nationalities and races, this makes life somewhat difficult for everyone.)
It may translate really well, it may not. The point is not to say "This will 100% happen to you", but to illustrate that the best of intentions can backfire spectacularly, sometimes with catastrophic results for all involved. It seems too high a risk to mess with naturally evolved systems like this, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.
In any case, I wasn't talking about immigration when I mentioned brown people, I was poking at the right wing slackjaws who seem to pull out the fear of anyone different as an argument to why we need to isolate ourselves more.
Ah, well, misunderstood then, I saw it in the context of immigration. Well, people will fear the unknown, and that will always be the case. The solution is fostering interaction and communication.
I find that kind of attitude to be inhumane, and that is why it feels to me like we are failing as humans. What truly separates us from them is a line on a piece of paper, and sometimes the color of our skin - the rest is learned.
Yes, and genetic traits that may predominate in certain areas. However, what is learned is what defines a country, a people, and their history is their legacy of their ancestors. To dilute/suppress/remove all that in the interest of "eliminating separation" is a travesty in my opinion, to be resisted at all costs.
That is why I believe it to be possible to co-exist, regardless of race and culture. And yes that is hugely idealistic, but I see no problem with that at all, and I certainly see no problem working towards that goal.
That is fine and all, but I don't see why countries can't co-exist. If they are well enough integrated in trade, and foster communication, I see no reason things would change.
My initial take on it was not to open our borders and let anybody in, but to expand the EU to include people where they live now. Subtle difference I fear might have gotten a little lost in all my other ramblings :)
Yes, yes it was :) However the more you expand the EU, the more unwieldy and ungovernable it becomes, the more ave