Life Sentences For Serious Cyberattacks Proposed In Britain

Bismillah (993337) writes 'The British government wants life in prison for hackers who cause disruption to computer networks, resulting in loss of life or threat to the country's national security. From the article: "The UK government will seek to amend the 1990 Computer Misuse Act "to ensure sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause. Currently, the law provides for a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment for those who commit the offence of impairing a computer. A new, aggravated offence of unauthorised access to a computer will be introduced into the Computer Misuse Act by the government, carrying far longer sentences."'

Comments

Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[johnjaydk]

Stupid gits.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Taco Cowboy]

You already know that they are stupid, man, please try you rbest to not ever give them _any_ more idea !

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[MRe_nl]

No, the death sentence is reserved for politicians and prime ministers who go to war on false pretenses just to get re-elected, resulting in loss of life or threat to the country's national security. From the article: "The UK government will seek to ensure sentences for attacks on society fully reflect the damage they cause".

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[infolation]

Until 1998, we had the death penalty as a punishment for high treason against the crown, so under that law it would have been possible to punish a computer offence with death if the defendant had disrupted a computer network with the intention of committing treason.

But not only was the death penalty for treason abolished; we're prohibited from restoring the death penalty (for any offence) as long as we're signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Opportunist]

Well, considering the damage various wars have caused to the faith in crown and country, some politicians should be very GLAD there's no death penalty for high treason anymore.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[sa1lnr]

"A hack that causes deaths, serious illness or injury"

So what kind of punishment do you propose for such actions?

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Death is reserved for people who are unable to reform and function in society, who are unable to function within the prison system, and who are unable to be medicated into submission for their natural lives. Death is not a punishment, it is a method of protecting society from someone so utterly abhorrent that it is literally impossible to allow them to continue living.

I don't know of anybody like that. I'm glad we don't have the death penalty.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[coastwalker]

Typical posturing crap from politicians. No doubt teenagers will be sent to prison for life for discovering security vulnerabilities. Having said that the morons known as the general population put up with this shit so lets concentrate on saving the children from terrorists and pedos by turning off the internet. When they have safely grown up we can pay them benefits cheques instead of a job or put them in prison for the rest of their lives sewing mail bags. Lets get our priorities right eh.

Civilisation is collapsing all around us and being replaced with a gulag.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Number42]

Stupid svns

FTFY.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[vivian]

I don't see why causing death by a hack should have any special treatment compared to causing death by an ice pick, a bullet, high voltage electricity, or any other exotic means.

There should be no special legislation needed for this.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[LifesABeach]

I guess that law the brits have about causing the death of one of its own citizens can't be found? I'm not to understanding of english law, let me speak this out. "If a person stabs and hacks some slob in the middle of the street, that's murder. Ok, that makes sense. But if that same killer is the one that turns off that same poor slob's life support machine, there is an english question as the, 'cause of death' ?"

I thought U.S. law enforcement were the lazyest on this planet, now the U.K. is trying to compete? I believe that sitting on your ass and watching TV with a cup of coffee/tea is not law enforcement. And if law enforcement types find that walking amungst the citizens is not a plus, then maybe they should find a new job.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too easy to disprove that you were trying to kill someone using your hack leading to manslaughter charges at most. The biggest issue I see with this kind of law is something like Snowden's case. I have seen many claims that Snowden's leaks have caused the deaths of many people, using this law you could then charge Snowden (or a British equivalent) with multiple counts of murder.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[ThaumaTechnician]

Damn you! I came here to say this!

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't recruit dead people. Leave the convicted in solitary confinement for 2 years and they will be happy to talk to anyone or even get a job.

-Lazy Coward who doesn't sign up

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too easy to disprove that you were trying to kill someone using your hack leading to manslaughter charges at most. The biggest issue I see with this kind of law is something like Snowden's case. I have seen many claims that Snowden's leaks have caused the deaths of many people, using this law you could then charge Snowden (or a British equivalent) with multiple counts of murder.

Exactly. I would like to see a list of the persons allegedly killed due to the factual information Edward Snowden has released. Oh, the government claims they cannot release the names due to "operational considerations"...bullshit.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[jythie]

It should not. However throwing it in there makes the law sound reasonable so they can extend the punishment for more abstract crimes like 'our contractor charged us X million dollars to clean up' and 'we lost customers due to our crappy security being exploited'.

Throw a bit about death and injury in there, but it will probably get used for monetary losses.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats different, treason would mean your giving away military secrets, or classified projects lead by government forces/agencies, to the enemy. This is vastly different, but I see the abuses from this law fall right into line with the dip-shits who came up with the (US) CFAA law.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No, the death sentence is reserved for politicians and prime ministers who go to war on false pretenses just to get re-elected

The strange thing is that this isn't even a very good strategy, at least not in the UK. Blair's administration only just retained power at the general election after going to war in Iraq, and even that was because of a combination of quirks in our electoral system. At the following election, it was closer to "Labour? Who are they?".

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hacking that will cause death , serious injury or sickness my question is what will you suggest for these kinds of acts ??

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Oh, the government claims they cannot release the names due to "operational considerations"...

This is why allowing vague terms like "national security" or "terrorism" as a justification for any penalty in law is dangerous. There is a certain irony in this news arriving on the same day that there are moves to hold a terrorism trial completely in secret. It's not so long after the Gary McKinnon fiasco, either.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[MrL0G1C]

Precisely, and the national security aspect just sounds like a way of jailing any hacker they don't like (think Edward Snowden, Julian Assange) for a long time.

We already have manslaughter and murder laws, I hate laws that double up on the same crime, they lead to abuse by the justice system.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of punishment do you propose for a theft that causes people to die from hunger? What kind of punishment for corruption that causes a hospital to run out of funds to treat patients?

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you wonder why Scotland wants out of the UK? ;)

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean? That is perfectly acceptable behavior. It should be encouraged, not punished!

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[meta-monkey]

But but but but it was on a computer!

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[CodeArtisan]

I don't see why causing death by a hack should have any special treatment compared to causing death by an ice pick, a bullet, high voltage electricity, or any other exotic means.

There should be no special legislation needed for this.

The problem was the legislation that was used to prosecute hacks didn't make this distinction. All they are proposing is to bring it in line with the other, existing, legislation.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say you're naive then. There are some people who are psychopathic monsters that are beyond rehabilitation, feel no remorse, and if released by accident or escaped, would kill again happily; namely, serial murderers.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[gstoddart]

Exactly, because "threat to the country's national security" is such a nebulous term that it could be applied in an awful lot of cases which are very inflated applications of it.

Unless that is defined pretty rigidly, that gives them a tremendous latitude to apply it whenever they want to.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[arse maker]

Because no member of the EU can punish someone by death.

http://europa.eu/legislation_s...

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[ColdWetDog]

Death is reserved for people who are unable to reform and function in society, who are unable to function within the prison system, and who are unable to be medicated into submission for their natural lives.

Well, you just described your average politician so I'm not sure what your beef is.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why causing death by a hack should have any special treatment compared to causing death by an ice pick, a bullet, high voltage electricity, or any other exotic means. There should be no special legislation needed for this.

Oh, but causing a threat to the country's national security by an ice pick, a bullet, high voltage electricity, or any other exotic means, is by far less possible!

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[L4t3r4lu5]

You seem to be of the opinion that psychopaths act maliciously, as though it is their choice to react impulsively and violently and without remorse. However, we interpret their actions as malicious because we perceive them as such through our rational opinions. They are mentally ill, perhaps moreso than if they had any other form of mental illness; They are incapable of acting in a reasonable manner.

These people fit into the third category; Medicated. They should be given all the care and treatment we can offer, and only if that is totally exhausted would I consider euthenasia an option. Because it would be euthenasia; Ending the suffering of an individual incapable of functioning in civilised society, and unfortunately beyond our help. I wouldn't be at all happy being the person having to make that decision.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[BasilBrush]

No, the death sentence is reserved for politicians and prime ministers who go to war on false pretenses just to get re-elected, resulting in loss of life or threat to the country's national security.

So that's Blair and Thatcher then.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[BasilBrush]

But not only was the death penalty for treason abolished; we're prohibited from restoring the death penalty (for any offence) as long as we're signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Damn those pesky human rights. Maybe we could make like the Americans and set up a torture camp on the Falklands so we don't have to obey our own laws.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[bugs2squash]

And I would add, "who live in a society that is unable to contain them". I could see some banana republic dispatching criminals as it has no reasonable incarceration facilities, but the US doesn't qualify.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[bugs2squash]

Certainly there is a place for severe punishment for horrible crimes, but this is mostly about portraying a group of people as undesirable. The UK government has a history of creating commercials that make thieves out to be subhuman, you wouldn't catch them doing the same to nefarious bankers. It's just old fashioned them and us politics. What they don't realize is that if you daemonize a hacker, she just runs in the background.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have to amend the existing law anyway to include the precise description of the acts so that the law can be used to accuse any suspected Number 10 porn stash oglers.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[geekoid]

FYI psychopath does not equal violent.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[geekoid]

It would be cheaper to have some one constantly monitor them and not allow them to own their own computer, then putting them in prison.

Reform is always better then punishment.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Hypotensive]

Because "attack by something I don't understand" is much more scary than "attack with a physical weapon".

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bit too late to execute Thatcher she is all ready dead. Unless you want to do what Charles 2nd did to Cromwells corpse.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Hognoxious]

Priority One. Insure return of organism for analysis.

Fire, theft, or all risks?

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry but not only is that a slippery slope, as in the past gays were listed as "mentally ill" because they didn't match up with what the state considered normal but its also ignoring the fact that some just get off on causing pain, see Gacey, Hansen, Lake & Ng for examples. They aren't "mentally ill" as they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they simply gained pleasure from the suffering and death of others. Some such as Hansen and Gacey even changed their patterns when they knew they were being watched by the police which blows your impulse argument out of the water, because if it were an impulse they wouldn't be able to change when they were at risk.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[bugs2squash]

At last, it's not just me then !

Re: Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, the invention of skullfucking.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[davester666]

Thus, we have the UK's desire to unhinge itself from the EU...

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[ultranova]

They should be given all the care and treatment we can offer, and only if that is totally exhausted would I consider euthenasia an option. Because it would be euthenasia; Ending the suffering of an individual incapable of functioning in civilised society, and unfortunately beyond our help.

Euthanasia means granting death to someone who's asking for it. What you're describing is simple murder. And, ironically enough, something a psychopath would say. So I guess you aren't bothered by not being the first to have such brilliant ideas.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[westlake]

I don't see why causing death by a hack should have any special treatment compared to causing death by an ice pick, a bullet, high voltage electricity, or any other exotic means.

The geek doesn't take it well when one of his own is facing hard time.

The arguments why he should be excused from such punishment as predictable as the rise and setting of the sun.

To make it plain to the geek that he isn't some special flower exempt from conviction on the felony charge is precisely the reason you make computer crimes and penalties specific.

In the 24 US states where the felony murder rule applies, the hack that is inherently dangerous and takes a life or many lives could end in a death sentence for the principals involved. It is a fair bet that the hacker will not see this coming.

In felony murder, when you break it, you bought it.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Keyboard Rage]

Well, considering the damage various wars have caused to the faith in crown and country, some politicians should be very GLAD there's no death penalty for high treason anymore.

Such as the one whose name is an anagram for "B-liar"?

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Keyboard Rage]

And you wonder why Scotland wants out of the UK? ;)

Look, the topic is about cyber attacks, not accidentally flashing people with your unmentionables every time you walk up the stairs while wearing a kilt.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[david_thornley]

At least in the US, it's common to treat death caused by felonious action as premeditated murder. Therefore, if somebody violated the CFAA by maliciously breaking into a hospital system, and disrupted life-support systems in an ICU, they might well face first-degree murder charges.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[gweihir]

Of course, sentences only apply to those not above the law or above accountability, so politicians, policemen and any other government-loyal official are exempt.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless that is defined pretty rigidly, that gives them a tremendous latitude to apply it whenever they want to.

National security is never defined, it is only ever brandished.

It's just a 20th century euphemism for "by decree", meaning whenever the rulers say so.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Opportunist]

Well, Clinton had his Buddy, why shouldn't Bush have his poodle?

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[L4t3r4lu5]

They aren't "mentally ill" as they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they simply gained pleasure from the suffering and death of others.

In and of itself, taking pleasure in the suffering and death of others is an inappropriate reaction to that stimulus; A symptom of mental illness. That they knew what they were doing is moot; Their broken brain didn't react in the typical way, any more than clotting in a person with haemophilia reacts improperly to bleeding.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[L4t3r4lu5]

You're quite right about the definition of euthenasia. However, your final point is straight-up Reductio ad Hitlerum; Because Hitler did it, it must be wrong. If, in the future, all medicine is exhausted and there are still those who cause needless damage to through mental illness, and incarceration is insufficient a protection for the population, what solution would you posit?

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[ultranova]

You're quite right about the definition of euthenasia. However, your final point is straight-up Reductio ad Hitlerum; Because Hitler did it, it must be wrong.

No, it's wrong because it's murder. Pointing out it was one of Nazi crimes against humanity - as the postwar court called it - was done for the benefit of the "pain is gain" crowd.

If, in the future, all medicine is exhausted and there are still those who cause needless damage to through mental illness, and incarceration is insufficient a protection for the population, what solution would you posit?

Please explain why incarceration would be insufficient? Do you think real-life prisons are Arkham Asylum?

Also, please understand that the archetypical psychopath is not an axe murderer or a serial killer but a lying jerk. Even those who acquire positions of power are more likely to engage in petty corruption - or even run a honest business - than unleash the Apocalypse. They simply don't value other people beyond their utility - which, as I already pointed out, seems to be your attitude too, at least in this conversation.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[hairyfeet]

In and of itself, taking pleasure in the same sex is an inappropriate reaction to that stimulus; A symptom of mental illness.

See the problem Sparky? if you start ignoring obvious signs of a damaged brain and just start labeling anything the society considers inappropriate behavior as "a sign of mental illness" pretty soon anybody who isn't Wally or June is a candidate for the padded cell.

Either we humans have free will, in which case there will be times when someone chooses to do something considered evil, or nobody has free will in which case whether you spend the rest of your life in a padded cell is truly at the whim of the state who can decide tomorrow that anything that doesn't fit a certain mold is deviant and dangerous...sorry but I prefer a world that believes the former NOT the latter.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[lsatenstein]

No, the death sentence is reserved for politicians and prime ministers who go to war on false pretenses just to get re-elected, resulting in loss of life or threat to the country's national security. From the article: "The UK government will seek to ensure sentences for attacks on society fully reflect the damage they cause".

Iran issued and implemented the death penalty for just this reason. The individual was hanged. At first I thought it was excessive, but now I realize it is almost like destroying an economy of a country.

Iran was first to execute a hacker.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[L4t3r4lu5]

It was a parent poster who was talking about amoral serial killers as psychopaths. I was talking about those examples specifically. It was also them who stated that they were too dangerous to be put into prison, and definitely too much so for civilian life. I was offering medicated incarceration as an alternative; At least there's a reprieve from hospitalisation if a "cure" is found. The GP wanted to kill them.

Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why causing death by a hack should have any special treatment compared to causing death by an ice pick, a bullet, high voltage electricity, or any other exotic means.

Because the outcome of a hack or malicious code is highly variable in comparison to hitting someone in the head with an ice pick. The Queens Speech says nothing about manslaughter being a ton easier by hack than by ice pick. There's no nuance. Just, as you argue, if a hack can cause death it should be judged as such. Disrupting computers with malicious code, that happen to be in use by a hospital, and happen to be critical for the preserving of lives could get you mass murder in an instant.

Remember the space invaders game where you would should your actual files into oblivion instead of baddies? Just one doctor on break playing the wrong game on a badly structured network could arguably lead to loss of life. Since this now is a special heavily punished category, enjoy lifelong in prison.

if they float they are guilty

[ei4anb]

The cyber laws in some countries seem to be inspired by fear of the unknown, reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials. The next test for guilt in "hackers" might be that they float

http://listverse.com/2012/07/2...

Re:if they float they are guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

The next test for guilt in "hackers" might be that they float

Real hackers only use int.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[ewanm89]

Aapparently we are just over a decade behind the US where a hacker could "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone".

Re:if they float they are guilty

[LookIntoTheFuture]

The next test for guilt in "hackers" might be that they float

- What makes you think she's a witch?
- She turned me into a newt!
- A newt?
- I got better.
- Burn her anyway!
- Quiet! Quiet!
- There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
- Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
- Tell me, what do you do with witches?
- Burn them!
- And what do you burn, apart from witches?
- More witches! - Wood!
- So why do witches burn?
- 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good!
- So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?
- Build a bridge out of her.
- Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
- Oh, yeah.
- Does wood sink in water?
- No, it floats. - Throw her into the pond!
- What also floats in water?
- Bread. - Apples.
- Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy.
- Cherries. Mud. - Churches! Churches!
- Lead! Lead!

Re:if they float they are guilty

[fredrated]

So you mean, there really are no hackers?

Re:if they float they are guilty

[laejoh]

Ah, duck typing!

Re:if they float they are guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't help that the s'kiddies* in computer security bandy the term around with wild abandon, including several modifiers to seem more "bad ass". Adding a (supposedly fashionable) danger sauce on your own persona makes you that much more appetizing for politicians out for doing things that'll please the voters, like legislating against (perceived) badness.

If you're in the security business you really ought to know what steps are likely to attract that sort of attention and you perhaps ought not to deliberately go there. Yet many a meal ticket has been made exactly out of that within the oh so special world of computer security.

It's not quite as bad as the Salem trials (yet), compare McCarthyism for a worse example (so far). But the abuse of terminology has helped neither the hackers nor the wannabe bunch in the security industry. That it is doing real damage shouldn't be too hard to see: The practice has already cost somebody his fourth amendment rights.

* There are very few people with the hacker mindset in computer security; it's nearly all posers regurgitating the 9000th variation on a few well-known exploit vector mechanisms. The cake got taken by this guy announcing themselves to be "hacker and professor". Calling yourself a hacker means you did not do the research.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[TeknoHog]

The next test for guilt in "hackers" might be that they float

Real hackers only use int.

Which is funny if you use a language where "real" means float (i.e. a real number, as opposed to rational or integer). At least Fortran does this, and I think we can all agree that Fortran is one of the few languages fit for a Real hacker.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[rsilvergun]

I think it's more about corps not wanting to pay for security. If you just drop the hammer and drop it hard people get the message. Sure, they'll still be attacks (lots of desperate ppl in today's economy), but they'll be fewer. Mean time to failure is important. People are already forgetting about Target, but if those sorts of attacks were monthly companies would have to do something about them.

Also, the nice thing about using brutal sentencing to slow the pace of attacks is the cost shifting. The Taxpayer foots the bill to put that guy away for life. If you let them do it Businesses will always shift costs onto the commons and profits onto themselves.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[Arith]

... as if a million jokes cried out in terror and then were suddenly silent.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

To determine whether someone's a real hacker you would have to have a test of their character.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[TeknoHog]

Besides, the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.

Re:if they float they are guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point.

Assuming how most politicians are illiterate about modern technology in general, it only makes sense they assume the worse and fear what you don't understand.

Here is my theory. To be a politician requires a lot of underhanded tactics, corruption, and suppression of opposing forces to reach the level of government they are elected. It requires a special mentality and psychology to reach that level of power. Just as a serial killer feels no remorse when killing, I predict a politicians mind functions similar. That is to say if you would hook them up to a fMRI and perform psychological testing then they would have have unique patterns of there own. Therefore it only makes sense that they would suppress any threats including those online using ambitious legislation open to determination.
 

Re:if they float they are guilty

[balbus000]

Give this man a mod point—on the double!

Life Sentences!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about for corruption, embezzlement and all the other ways criminals and terrorists outright destroy the lives of citizens daily?

Re:Life Sentences!

[Alain Williams]

Add self-serving & corrupt bankers and lawyers to that lot and you get my vote

Re:Life Sentences!

[Opportunist]

You got that wrong. We want to lock up those that could present a danger to the powers that are, not the ones that fund them.

Re:Life Sentences!

[coastwalker]

You dont count, its only crimes against the State that attract special attention. Nothing like as bad as China but with stuff like this we are equally capable of creating bad law.

Re:Life Sentences!

[alexo]

How about for corruption, embezzlement and all the other ways criminals and terrorists outright destroy the lives of citizens daily?

Won't work, because the criminals and terrorists will never agree to it.

Re:Life Sentences!

[Blue Stone]

>How about for corruption, embezzlement and all the other ways criminals and terrorists outright destroy the lives of citizens daily?

Yeah, but the politicians themselves are often in on those sort of things, so ...

Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[zAPPzAPP]

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

The second part 'threat to the country's national security' on the other hand is such a broad term, it is basicly a blank check where they can fill in any sentence for any crime as they wish.

So I guess it's really about the second part, and the first part is only there to give it more weight: 'HACKERS MIGHT KILL YOU!'

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Trepidity]

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

A cynical guess as to why they might want a separate law is because the prosecutor doesn't want to have to actually prove murder and/or manslaughter according to conventional standards of evidence.

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Ynot_82]

HACKERS MIGHT KILL YOU

http://intrawebnet.com/wp-cont... ;)

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[gnasher719]

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

That's the problem. In UK law, it is murder if you intended to kill or cause serious injury to someone, and someone dies as a result (may be another person). If some bloody idiot hacks into a hospital's computer system "for the lulu" (Safari replaces a z with an u, and I find it actually more appropriate that way), and as a result people die without any intent to cause death, then apparently this isn't murder currently.

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this is related to the previous story on "secret terrorism trial" they got there...

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Anonymous Coward]

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

"Done with a computer"? Quick! Head to the patent office!

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[stewsters]

What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Anonymous Coward]

But there are many crimes that are treated the same way.
Theft, corruption, fraud, etc could all cause loss of life but are not treated as murder.
Why should hacking be treated differently?

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[gnasher719]

What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.

The difference between this and computer hacking is that you have to be physically present. You see a hospital. Your mind realises there is a hospital with people. The hacker doesn't see a hospital, he sees a keyboard and a screen. For some low lives there is no connection between their actions and real people. It's like a violent computer game.

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[is not primary]

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

That's the problem. In UK law, it is murder if you intended to kill or cause serious injury to someone, and someone dies as a result (may be another person). If some bloody idiot hacks into a hospital's computer system "for the lulu" (Safari replaces a z with an u, and I find it actually more appropriate that way), and as a result people die without any intent to cause death, then apparently this isn't murder currently.

In the UK, I'm, fairly sure this would currently be classed as Involuntary manslaughter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.

As would this

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Blue Stone]

Inddeed. "Threat to the national security" was recently used to quash an investigation into corruption and bribery involved in a deal with Saudi Arabia. Important to have the Saudi royal family on your side, apparently. More important than the law or justice; so the "National Security" card was played and everything got dropped.

This move is about stopping people like Edward Snowden. It what we've come to expect from the Britsh State.

Meanwhile, the government gets up to whatever the hell it likes under the utterly, utterly false boilerplate defence that “all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight.”

We live in a country that's little changed from the 18th century in terms of democracy and accountability.

Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer'

[Keyboard Rage]

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

The second part 'threat to the country's national security' on the other hand is such a broad term, it is basicly a blank check where they can fill in any sentence for any crime as they wish.

So I guess it's really about the second part, and the first part is only there to give it more weight: 'HACKERS MIGHT KILL YOU!'

Considering how sharp badly finished cheap computer case parts can be, it should be totally possible to commit manslaughter or murder by literally hacking up the victim using a computer case sidewall, provided the case is not made from third-rate aluminium.

I wonder whether such a case would fall under this suggested legislation.

Don't trust these idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

From the government that brought you convictions for changing URLs.

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

This will never be abused to give people disproportionate sentences by stretching the definition of what a "threat to the country's national security" is.

Costs too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Off with the head and be done with it.

Re:Costs too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - let's start with the real hackers... NSA personal?

Loss of life

[penix1]

I can see stiffer sentences if the hacking leads to loss of life DIRECTLY. For example, hacking into a hospital system and bringing down critical life saving systems.

But to me, and I don't know how the UK manslaughter laws are rigged, it would be more helpful to update those laws instead of this one.

Having said that, national security combined with unauthorized computer access can and will be used against whistleblowers of government abuse. Watch for that to happen.

Re:Loss of life

[Savage-Rabbit]

I can see stiffer sentences if the hacking leads to loss of life DIRECTLY. For example, hacking into a hospital system and bringing down critical life saving systems.

But to me, and I don't know how the UK manslaughter laws are rigged, it would be more helpful to update those laws instead of this one.

Having said that, national security combined with unauthorized computer access can and will be used against whistleblowers of government abuse. Watch for that to happen.

I'm generally in favour of people not getting any discounts on sentences for 'cyber attacks'. This is partly because I remember a time long ago when certain egotistical morons saw creating malware and letting it loose on the public as a good career move, a short cut to a well paying job. However, even those people don't deserve a life sentence and whoever thought of that idea should look up the word 'draconian' in a dictionary. If a cyber attack kills somebody use the manslaughter laws, if they cause massive amounts of damage sentence them appropriately just don't try to crack down on hactivists like Anonymous by trying to lock them up for life (and let's face it that's who these laws are aimed at). That's something that you'd expect to be the knee-jerk reaction in Putin's Russia not in the United Kingdom.

Re:Loss of life

[L4t3r4lu5]

If a cyber attack kills somebody use the manslaughter laws

Exactly.>/i>

We already have laws covering both unauthorised access to a computer, and covering loss of life (whether negligent, unintentional, or premeditated). You don't need a new law to cover them both!

Hacker causes life support machines to fail by setting off the sprinkler system, causing electrical faults? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Manslaughter (Unintended consequence, maximum life) = sentence
Hacker causes industrial machinery of previous employer to fail catastrophically intentionallyy causing death? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Murder (Life) = sentence.

It seems "Death by computer" is already covered.

Re:Loss of life

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws that somehow make special a tool or an emotion really need to be purged from our history. Killing or injuring someone isn't a bigger crime because you didn't like someones race. It is the same crime as killing or injuring someone because you didn't like them personally. Drawing a distinction is beyond stupid and approaching criminal in itself. It is the same crime if you kill or injure someone with a computer...

Similarly causing damage/loss of business/massive dissruptions can certainly be crimes, particularly if they apply to a large number of persons or property. It should not matter how that crime is accomplished when it comes to sentencing. It could be with a computer, or by taking an axe to cables on a telephone pole. Of course crimes where people are actually hurt or property of value is actually taken from someone would be larger crimes, but then your again combining the crime of personal injury and or theft, which are separate crimes and can be charged separately.

Re:Loss of life

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise computer crime should not be limited to ten years because it included a computer.

It should match the crime.

Re:Loss of life

[Anonymous Coward]

But to me, and I don't know how the UK manslaughter laws are rigged, it would be more helpful to update those laws instead of this one.

In English law, it is common to bring manslaughter charges in cases of negligence, e.g. against railway companies failing to maintain safety standards and, historically, against employees of such companies. IANAL, but it seems to be that any wilful act that is in itself illegal constitutes manslaughter if it causes a death.

Re:Loss of life

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you should change to a hospital staffed with penguins? ^_^

Re:Loss of life

[flopsquad]

Undoing misclicked downmod-- this is actually spot on insightful.

This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

...is in a position to criticism the US. I lived in Scotland for years, so I'm fairly familiar with the UK, and from Oz originally.

The US is losing it's way, but not as badly as the UK. Crazy amounts of surveillance, very poor rights for photographers and journalists, ridiculous laws such as going to jail if you forget an encryption key...

Not to mention this nonsense. Prison is not meant to be primarily a deterrent, but a way to rehabilitate if possible. Because, you know, the punishment should fit the crime.

Something all western countries seem to have forgotten...

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Godwin O'Hitler]

I'm not disagreeing with any of your observations, but I do think "people who live in glass houses" isn't much of an argument, even in the best of cases.
The way I look at it is all today's governments are abominations, so they all need criticizing. And today happens to be the UK's turn.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[treehouse]

Perhaps the British prisons succeed in rehabilitating criminals, but the US prisons only succeed in making a person unfit to live in society (other than prison society).

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Viol8]

"Prison is not meant to be primarily a deterrent, but a way to rehabilitate if possible"

Err , sorry , excuse me? A primary deterrent is exactly what it is and a way to keep criminals out of main society. Rehabilitation comes later if it even works which with a lot of psychopaths and sex offenders it doesn't.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Xest]

"very poor rights for photographers"

Like what? If you mean you can't go and break into someone's garden and take pictures of them naked through their bedroom window to sell to the tabloid press, then yes, we're absolutely awful in this respect. What a shame.

Other than that apart from some police officers who got it wrong in terms of letting people take pictures where they actually could I don't really see what the deal is. I've been able to take pictures just fine in everything from military bases, to the London tube, to parliament. I'm not sure what sort of pictures you want to take but aren't allowed to.

"and journalists"

We're not exactly top of the list but the UK is listed in the press freedom index well above countries like the US and Japan and also above even some European neighbours like France. Given the liberties journalists have taken with their freedoms such as spying on the telephone messages of a serving prime minister and deleting voicemails on the phone of a girl who was missing and being searched for giving parents false hope she was alive I don't think they have much to complain about. Journalists here seem to get plenty of freedom and those who have the most - print media actually do the worst reporting. By far most quality reporting comes on TV which is actually more regulated - certainly it took the more tightly regulated TV industry to break the Jimmy Savile scandal for example.

"ridiculous laws such as going to jail if you forget an encryption key..."

You're obviously not that familiar with the UK, because you're parroting the kind of nonsense that only people who read Slashdot but don't know much about the country would parrot now. RIPA states very clearly (and yes, I've read the actual law itself) that to get someone jailed for claiming to have lost a password you have to be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they haven't in fact forgotten it. The only way this has been used therefore is in cases where people have outright refused to hand it over, or where someone said in police interview they'd forgotten it, went home, accessed the information, and were raided under warrant shortly after only for the police to find log information showing they'd used the password yet were still claiming they've forgotten it, at that point it's hard to argue they weren't simply withholding it given that they'd clearly used it in a 2 hour or whatever window between denials of knowing it. You can't go to jail if you've actually forgotten your encryption key, because if you've actually genuinely forgotten it then there's no way the police can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you do in fact know it is there?

"Prison is not meant to be primarily a deterrent, but a way to rehabilitate if possible."

And this changes that how exactly? A life sentence in the UK just means a minimum term will be specified and that can be increased if the person hasn't shown signs of change or if they break their parole. It doesn't mean you spend your entire life in jail, few life sentences end up with people jailed for more than 10 years. This means we still have longer sentences than places like Norway but overall we still have one of the most liberal justice systems in the world in this respect.

A whole life order is the instrument used for someone who must stay in jail for their whole life, and this tends to be reserved for the most extreme cases such as serial killers. There are less than 50 of these in place, in a country with a population of just under 65 million that's not particularly a big deal.

I agree we have a lot of problems, GCHQ is out of control and we should never have gotten involved in the NSA spying. But even the CCTV issue is becoming less relevant since the current government placed curbs on it and many councils and police services who ran the CCTV networks have now shut many of them down.

I don't really like my country for what it's worth, I think it's full of ignorant xenophobes and people with horrendously selfish attitudes, couple

Re: This is why no Briton....

[bill_mcgonigle]

The UK has always had a headstart on corporate-driven fascism, way back to the Empire, but Americans are proving adept at catch-up. See, this kind of sentencing makes perfect sense as soon as you adopt the position that only corporate interests matter.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[JimSadler]

The public has turned into a big sissy, frightened by the slightest perceived threat. And we have no common sense or agreement on what should be considered wrong or illegal. I would rather throw the people that advertise phony medications on the net under the bus than some guy who hacks into a banks computer and tells the world about who has the money in the community.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[geekoid]

No, it is not a deterrent. Nor should it be a punishment. It should be focused on rehabilitation.
It is much cheaper and far more effective, and far better for society.

A TINY amount of people can't be rehabilitated, but they can be medicated.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Blue Stone]

This is why no Briton is in a position to criticism [sic] the US.

Britons are not party to the nefarious shenannigans of the British state (by and large). Britons who oppose such things should be free to criticise them wherever they happen. As should everyone.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[cyberchondriac]

Indeed. Rehabilitation only works on people who want to be rehabilitated. The prison system is basically a massive failure if that's it's primary goal.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Hognoxious]

Rehabilitate them and you only get paid once. Repeat offenders, on the other hand, are a continuing income stream.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

Using prison as a deterrent means that for some people, the punishment will not fit the crime.

That is not acceptable. Or, it shouldn't be in a civilized society.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

Thank you for your comment. I don't have the time to reply in detail, but just wanted to say if you search for examples to the things I note, they are plentiful.

The problem with photographers is yes, police who don't know better and harass photographers. It's actually a big problem and occurs far more frequently than you may realize.

The UK actually seems to be equal to the US according to RWB, on the WPFI. I guess the different problems balance out.

The problem with RIPA is the law itself. The execution doesn't matter. A law that relies on good intent, is problematic. Also, the burden of reasonable doubt does not apply in the UK, which is sad. Indeed, R v Majid was overturned due for this very reason.

The prison comment was not specific to the UK. Sorry for any confusion.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[gweihir]

Indeed. The incentives to not rehabilitate anyone and send as many as possible to prison in the first place and for as long as possible are clear and effective. It was known beforehand what the effects would be. Having a huge part of the population in prison and making sure they never recover is an effective deterrent strategy against anybody that may want to change the status quo. Of course, any totalitarian regime (and the US has been that for a while) eventually faces total economic collapse, as totalitarianism kills economic efficiency. Just look at North Korea to see what is in stock for the US and the UK. On the plus side, maybe in 100 years or so, they will rediscover that individual freedoms are important.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[gweihir]

The prison system is a massive failure. It is based on fundamentally faulty assumptions and causes a huge cost to society.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[gweihir]

The same worked in the 3rd Reich and any other dictatorship before and after. They just added the illusion of "Democracy" these days.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Poor rights for journalists" is not a bug, it's a feature.

A journalist in the UK has absolutely zero special rights or immunities. There is nothing, repeat nothing, that a journalist is allowed to do that wouldn't be just as legal for any other member of the public to do.

Trespassing? Taking photos? Walking through police cordons? Sometimes a journalist can do these things, sure - but so can you or I, or anyone, depending how convincing we can be when challenged. A press card might give you, at most, a +2 bonus to your Fast Talk check. That's all. (Incidentally, the same is true in the USA - in fact, the First Amendment guarantees it must be - but the journalists themselves will do everything possible to obfuscate this fact.)

That's a good thing. Singling out groups of Special, Licensed people for special legal immunities is the path to tyranny.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Xest]

"The problem with photographers is yes, police who don't know better and harass photographers. It's actually a big problem and occurs far more frequently than you may realize."

That's the problem, I don't think it does. I think it's newsworthy precisely because it is such an odd thing to happen.

By law photographers have every right to photograph, so it's not as if there is some section enshrined in law that cripples the rights of photographers, simply a training issue amongst some police officers (one that I believe police forces have been informed to resolve) that they aren't aware that people can in fact take photos in public - even of potentially sensitive things. Googling "police harass photographer" highlights far more cases of it in the US for what it's worth.

"Also, the burden of reasonable doubt does not apply in the UK, which is sad. Indeed, R v Majid was overturned due for this very reason."

I've never heard of this case, but I had a look here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

It seems there's absolutely nothing to suggest that what you say is true, merely that there was a procedural error in this specific case. This document seems to suggest the appeal was actually dismissed because the case was strong and despite the judge's mis-step the initial verdict would not have been different regardless.

Fundamentally though, the beyond reasonable doubt clause is actually written directly into this particular clause of RIPA itself, so even if your suggestion were true that this no longer generally applies in the UK, it most definitely applies to this particular provision of RIPA regardless because that's exactly how the law is scripted. See here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Section 3) b) is the relevant section of the law. It clearly states:

"(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Note that there is an assumption that the person has shown they have not been in possession of the key unless it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, thus your assertion that the law relies on good intent is in itself false. The law as written pre-supposes that the defendant has by default shown that they don't have the key - it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable that they in fact do for a prosecution to succeed.

Which highlights my point, most people slagging off RIPA haven't even bothered to read what it says in practice. Most of the commonly cited issues with the UK aren't what they seem in practice - even the one thing I agree is a problem, proliferation of CCTV, is largely misunderstood based on incorrect assumptions such as that speed cameras are all permanently on and can all stream live feeds, that the same is true of ANPR, and that the oft-cited report about numbers of CCTV cameras in the UK is talking about state cameras when in fact it's folding private (e.g. shop) CCTV into the mix.

As I say I have many problems with the UK but much of those cited as examples of how the UK has "become an authoritarian Orwell fantasy" are completely false. Slashdot just isn't a good place to have rational discussions or gain an understanding of these issues because it rapidly enters batshit crazy territory based on people without a clue jumping to extreme conclusions. Take the many people claiming the right to be forgotten in the EU will allow censorship of the media and rewriting of history for example, the actual draft law includes explicit provisions excluding the media and freedom of expression from it so it doesn't even apply in the way people claim anyway.

It'd just be nice if we could have these discussions on Slashdot based on the facts, not nonsense conclusions people have jumped to.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Viol8]

"No, it is not a deterrent. Nor should it be a punishment. It should be focused on rehabilitation. It is much cheaper and far more effective, and far better for society."

Yes, god forbid we should punish someone for doing something wrong, that would be against their human rights wouldn't it? Can't have that can we, mustn't be nasty to anyone because that makes us as bad as them right?

Wrong! Its utter BS and naive suckers like you in the justice are the reason someone walked out of an open prison in the UK a few weeks back and immediately went on to commit an armed robbery. Christ you people make me sick , you moronic ideology is fucking up western society but you're all too stupid and arrogant to see it.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

While we disagree, it would be nice if you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my arguments as nonsense conclusions that I'm jumping to.

The problems with police and photographers in the UK are frequent, and troublesome as I said. I'm not at home at the moment, but there is actually a site indexing complaints about this happening, and it was well over a thousand.

A small percentage perhaps, but a large enough number to be worrying.

As for R v Majid, I shall quote from the Wikipedia page on Reasonable Doubt :

However, juries in criminal courts in England are no longer customarily directed to consider whether there is "reasonable doubt" about a defendant's guilt. Indeed, a recent conviction was appealed after the judge had said to the jury "You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt." The conviction was upheld but the Appeal Court made clear their unhappiness with the judge's remark, indicating that the judge should instead have said to the jury simply that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty".

There is also a reference on that page for the quotes etc, if you need to verify.

Your breakdown of the law as written certainly seems logical and seems to make sense. I'd say I would agree with your conclusion were it not for troubling news stories which seem to contradict it.

I would think this Wikipedia page has a good summary.

The problem with the law is that it is still assuming that the person does have the key. I know that the law is worded to assume the person does not have a key unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in practice that is apparently an easy thing to prove (and perhaps skirt the intention of that clause), based on prosecutions. The law is flawed...it shouldn't have such a clause at all.

The problem is the burden of proof is reversed. It shouldn't be.

You quoted section 53 (3), but that follows 53 (2), which is why RIPA is disturbing:

In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

So basically, they assume you have it.

And what constitutes reasonable doubt? I have true crypt installed, perhaps that is sufficient?

Any such law like that should be written to only persecute people if they are known to have a key and refuse to hand it over. Anything else, even the clause in RIPA, leads to abuses of power. Demonstrably so.

Not to mention, the idea that you can be in jail until you hand over a key is horribly flawed, not to mention injust. The defense you mention that you feel justifies the act? You get to use that after you've already been arrested, jailed, fingerprinted etc...

Another point, what is the criteria for determining ifi information is encrypted or not? Lets say I have an encrypted partition disguised as a garbage file...they can't prove it is an encrypted volume, but what is to stop them from being sure it is and prosecuting me if they don't hand over they key?

If RIPA was nothing as you suggest, it wouldn't be such a cause for concern, domestically in the UK with financial institutions, media institutions etc. And, it is. You need only search to see the reactions to it.

Also of interest:

http://www.techweekeurope.co.u...

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Xest]

"While we disagree, it would be nice if you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my arguments as nonsense conclusions that I'm jumping to."

I'm dismissing them because I live here, have always lived here, and do not see any evidence of the frequency you're claiming. Despite being immersed in the media day in day out because I follow the news constantly and because I've been across the country and met many people. If what you're saying is true, that the problem is widespread, then where is the evidence?

"As for R v Majid, I shall quote from the Wikipedia page on Reasonable Doubt :"

I guess that's the problem with Wikipedia. It's not always right, reading the appeal courts notes I linked tells a very different story.

"The problem with the law is that it is still assuming that the person does have the key. I know that the law is worded to assume the person does not have a key unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in practice that is apparently an easy thing to prove (and perhaps skirt the intention of that clause), based on prosecutions. The law is flawed...it shouldn't have such a clause at all."

Again, where is the evidence? You're taking some nonsense on Wikipedia that contradicts the actual law itself and then throwing out some wishy washy comment about how easy it is to prove in practice. Where in practice has this been shown? No case to date has seen anyone convicted of this law without them either admitting they lied about knowing the password and handing it over eventually (hence falling foul of not honouring the initial request) or people that have done stupid stuff as in my original comment - claimed they don't know it but then had their computer checked by forensicists who could prove they did in fact know and use the password at a time they were claiming they didn't know it only to then admit they knew it and to hand it over hoping for leniency. There have then been a ton of cases where the police dropped the charge precisely because they couldn't prove it. There's not been a single case where anyone has been convicted of that clause of RIPA and still to this day claims they knew it.

"And what constitutes reasonable doubt?"

That's what the original case you spoke of when wrongly claiming reasonable doubt doesn't exist anymore covered - it's not something that is trivially defined, but what is well understood is that it means a high standard of evidence is required, such that no reasonable counter-claim is not realistic. Again as per my original example, it's not realistic to claim you don't know it if you logged in 2 hours after and 2 hours before you were asked twice by police and evidence of that was available.

"Any such law like that should be written to only persecute people if they are known to have a key and refuse to hand it over."

Which is exactly what it does and is exactly what the well established principle of reasonable doubt in law seeks to ensure. If you're arguing that conviction based on guilt beyond reasonble doubt is insufficient then that means every murder law in every country across the globe is now meaningless and that all prosecution for murder might as well be stopped. It's a stupid argument, we can't ever get a 100% accurate conviction rate, but without just giving up with the idea of enforcing any law at all with court convictions then it's the best we have and I see no problem with that standard being applied for something like RIPA's password key clause if it's good enough as a standard for determining guilt for murder convictions and other equally serious crimes.

"Another point, what is the criteria for determining ifi information is encrypted or not? Lets say I have an encrypted partition disguised as a garbage file...they can't prove it is an encrypted volume, but what is to stop them from being sure it is and prosecuting me if they don't hand over they key?"

Stop asking me and start reading the actual law. It's all defined in there. Rather than making excuses as to why it's bad without u

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

Sigh, OK, right.

I was going to write a longer reply, but I don't think it's worthwhile since you admit upfront to dismissing what I'm saying.

I've gone to the sources. I've read the notes. I've read RIPA. You don't seem to understand the law, or that it reverses the burden of proof. It is, quite simply and demonstrably a bad law, when measured against ethical and legal principles of the last 500 years.

You are, quite simply, wrong. I'll leave it to the readers of our conversation, if any to reach their own decisions, but the evidence is there if you're willing to look and don't insist on some combination of denying, reinterpreting or dismissing the laws and evidence available - which is I'm afraid what you're doing.

Finishing points:

Having always lived in the UK doesn't give you the position of authority you think it does on the matter. I've been traveling for the last 16 years or so, been to 365 countries....you would probably be shocked at just how misinformed people are about their country of residence.

RIPA is bad. The law has been abused, and contrary to what you say, does in fact, in practice, assume that the owner of an encrypted file has access to the key for that encrypted file. See my previous post if you need this clarified.

It also doesn't matter if prosecutions have happened or been successful or not. The problem is with the law. It shouldn't exist as it does to allow such prosecutions. Successful prosecutions are not the metric by which you judge if a law is just or unjust.

Reasonable Doubt does not exist in the UK. This is fine, as it is, at least worded that way, a particularly American thing. The fact that the principle is largely absent in the UK though is disturbing. And yes, the appeal notes for the previously referenced case do indeed contain the quote Wikipedia uses.

We disagree, so lets leave it at that. For what it's worth though, since you seem to pride yourself on going to the actual sources to see what they say, you should double check a few things. Like the appeals notes for the case, and perhaps a legal breakdown (by a solicitor, plenty such breakdowns available) of just why RIPA is bad.

You might also want to try not telling people they don't have a clue. I'm tempted to say that about you, but that is needlessly antagonistic and not at all productive, factual as though it may be.

Cheers

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Xest]

It seems you're one of those Slash idiots I was referring to if you're incapable of reading. RIPA states in plain English that there is a presumption someone hasn't got the key unless the police can prove beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise. What is so hard to grasp about that?

I even quoted the relevant passage, what's so difficult for you? You don't get to just dismiss the law as it's actually written by claiming I'm wrong. The law is the law, I'm sorry it demonstrates very clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about but it is what it is so get over it.

"Having always lived in the UK doesn't give you the position of authority you think it does on the matter. I've been traveling for the last 16 years or so, been to 365 countries....you would probably be shocked at just how misinformed people are about their country of residence."

I'd really love to know how you've been to 365 countries. Even with countries that have been and gone in the last 16 years there haven't been 365 countries to travel to in that time. You're right that being in the UK doesn't give explicit advantage, but it does if like me you actually bother to take the time to research issues in your own country, something you clearly cannot claim to have done given that you are demonstrably wrong, that despite your constant claims otherwise, the law is in direct contradiction to your claims. Given your blatant lie about travelling to countries that don't exist I think it's becoming quite obvious how full of shit you actually are.

"RIPA is bad. The law has been abused, and contrary to what you say, does in fact, in practice, assume that the owner of an encrypted file has access to the key for that encrypted file."

Why are you denying the law says what it says? I've posted the link, I've posted the quote. You're verifiably wrong. It clearly states the accused is understood to have shown they do not have the case unless the prosecution can prove otherwise. That's innocent until proven guilty in it's very essence.

"Reasonable Doubt does not exist in the UK."

Oh shut the fuck up already. Yes it does. Just because you can't interpret a ruling doesn't mean reasonable doubt has magically ceased to exist. Even Cambridge law professors agree you're full of shit:

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/rese...

The Wikipedia article you're desperately clinging on to doesn't even say what you seem to think it does. All it says is that jurors aren't asked explicitly using the term beyond reasonable doubt precisely because it's unclear (you yourself demonstrated in your previous post you don't understand what it means) therefore it's now asked in a clearer manner. The legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt isn't in any way moved or removed by this however - it's simply explained in clearer terms to the jury so that their decisions don't get caught up on philosophical debates about what it means in practice.

"We disagree, so lets leave it at that."

Yes we disagree, because you're completely and utterly wrong but still grasping at straws otherwise. I've been pleasant, I've been straightforward, and I've cited evidence in all my responses. Despite demonstrably showing why you are wrong you insist on continuing to be wrong though, thus I will treat you with the level of idiocy you seem desperate to stoop to.

"Like the appeals notes for the case, and perhaps a legal breakdown (by a solicitor, plenty such breakdowns available) of just why RIPA is bad."

I've already done all the necessary research and provided citations for all my claims. You've done nothing other than deny reality and make some half arsed comments about how somewhere on the net there is some mystical evidence proving you right and proving that the very law itself is somehow wrong, even though that's a logical impossibility. The law is the law, so it is what it is, it cannot both be what it is and something it's not - i.e. what you're claiming it it is.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Hognoxious]

You rather missed my point. The key word was "revenue".

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

I'm sorry kid, but the only idiot here is you.

You can't make your argument with facts and logic, and despite not being a lawyer, insist your interpretation is wrong while calling everyone else who doesnt share your flawed interpretation an idiot.

You're the one who is wrong here, and you have no idea how to read the law. Hint: The section you think proves your point, doesn't, as it immediately follows the section that proves mine.

Do yourself a favour, drop the arrogance, read up on why you're wrong, and everyone will be the better for it.

Till you're worth debating with, I won't be replying.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

Gah. typos.

"and despite not being a lawyer, insist your interpretation is wrong" should read "and despite not being a lawyer, insisting your interpretation is right".

Oh, and 365 was obviously a typo. I've been to 36 countries. It wasn't obvious what I meant, but it wasn't 365 and you could have just asked. It's a further sign of your desperation if you have to attack an obvious typo.

Idiots like you were why I left the UK actually. Arrogant fools who think they are right and the answer is "obvious" and lack any ability to think critically and realize they might be wrong and their "obvious" answer was neither obvious or correct. All too prevalent.

Eh, best of luck to you.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Xest]

Unfortunately your typo was indistinguishable from the rest of your stupidity. Given your propensity to lie about most other things you said coupled with the fact you clearly had no idea what you're talking about it's not obvious that you didn't in fact want to pretend that you'd been to 365 countries until it was pointed out to you that that would actually be impossible.

If you really had a leg to stand on in your argument you'd demonstrate why I am wrong, but given that that is impossible because I've posted the actual law as written, and explained that no RIPA password case to date has gone the way you claim it's not surprise you went off on a rant about the UK.

So thank you for confirming that deep down you accept you are wrong, but are just too childish to ever admit it publicly. The right answer is obvious when it's right in front your face, apparently you can't even spot it even then.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[metrix007]

I did demonstrate why you were wrong, you just decided to ignore it and chose to resort to insults instead of respond.

Which makes it pretty clear you have no argument, and you were just a waste of time to deal with.

Good to know I should avoid you in the future though. Thanks.

Re:This is why no Briton....

[Xest]

You haven't demonstrated why I'm wrong because you can't demonstrate why I'm wrong because you can't dispute the law as it's written is not written as it's written as that creates a paradox, hence, you are still wrong. Get over it.

How about the other way around?

[otuz]

Shouldn't maintainers of compromised systems be held liable for skimping on security?

Re:How about the other way around?

[Trepidity]

The almost complete lack of liability that tech companies have managed to engineer for themselves via EULAs is fairly astonishing. Very few other industries have managed to pull off such a complete abdication of responsibility to deliver safe and functional products, and gotten the courts to agree with them.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gsslay]

That's right. Blaming the victim has always been a popular tactic amongst the criminal classes.

Re:How about the other way around?

[Goose In Orbit]

So you leave your doors unlocked and open when you go out do you?

I assume nobody in your neighbourhood would even consider walking in and stealing all your shiny things...

Re:How about the other way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone causes damage through computer hacking, ordinary people think it's the equivalent of someone destroying a building with explosives, so they want corresponding sentences. Only people familiar with computer security know it's the equivalent of someone destroying a building by throwing a baseball at it.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gstoddart]

That's right. Blaming the victim has always been a popular tactic amongst the criminal classes.

If you're using an insecure system which you know is an insecure system ... are you still a victim?

Say you know you're running a system which hasn't been patched for the Heartbleed bug, and you know about the issue (because, you pretty much couldn't know).

If you get hacked, you're not a victim, you're an idiot.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gsslay]

... are you still a victim?

Yes. Unless you are suggesting that being foolish/ignorant/unaware makes it ok to commit crime against.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gsslay]

Bad anology.

If I was foolish enough to leave my door open then I'd get stuff stolen. That would be bad enough. I wouldn't also expect the authorities to come around and hold me liable for having my stuff stolen.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gstoddart]

Unless you are suggesting that being foolish/ignorant/unaware makes it ok to commit crime against.

No, I'm saying your being foolish/ignorant/unaware in this case means you have only yourself to blame.

The reality is, computer attacks are automated, widespread, and more or less inevitable.

The crime is going to happen anyway. But if you don't take your own reasonable steps to ensure it doesn't happen to you then don't be surprised when it happens.

I'm not saying this is true for all crimes -- but at a certain point, people need to take some responsibility for their own internet security. Because the internet is going to try to harm you anyway.

Re:How about the other way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you planned it for the insurance money...

In any case, what about these companies who are intentionally leaving the country and their citizens vulnerable in the name of state surveillance? Who do you blame then?

Re:How about the other way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

But in most cases, the "victim" would likely be the unsuspecting customers whose information was stolen from the corporation's insecure servers. They deserve to be slapped for mishandling private information.

Re:How about the other way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did you see the way she was dressed? She was asking for it."

Re:How about the other way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

We agree that the thief is a criminal.

Now, if your stuff got stolen, yeah that's the end of it. But, if you had my stuff you borrowed and you left the door open and unlocked, you are guilty of negligence by not taking reasonable actions to secure my belongings. Especially if our relationship involves a mutually agreed upon contract that says you will keep my stuff safe.

If you have users personal data, creative works where they have the copyright, or other data you don't "own" in your possession, and your security stinks, then when you are hacked you are guilty of criminal negligence and you owe your users damages (and possible have other fines or punishment to pay). That said, negligence has a "reasonable" threshold, that if are doing what is considered best practice and you can demonstrate you were doing things "right" by modern standards and you still got broken into you should not be held liable. If you don't patch, use encryption, nor properly secure your users data in some gross violation of basic security common sense, then you should be held accountable to the users and the law.

Re:How about the other way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are victim of theft, but if your poor security exposed users data, you may also be guilty of civil and/or criminal negligence.

Re:How about the other way around?

[david_thornley]

"Victim" and "idiot" are not mutually exclusive. If somebody breaks into your computer system and does damage, you're a victim. If your system is on an open wifi setup and your password is "password", you're an idiot.

As long as you only lose your own stuff, it's a private affair, although you may find your insurance company less than cooperative. If you're hosting somebody else's stuff, like maybe medical records, then if you haven't made a good effort at security you're negligent.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gweihir]

Indeed. I propose "accessory to hacking" and to give them life-sentences as well.

Re:How about the other way around?

[gsslay]

"He was getting on a bit. He found new things confusing and increasingly harder to understand. So serves him right that I hacked his computer and stole his credit card numbers. That'll teach him to get old. He had it coming, only himself to blame. Get off the internet, you ancient fossil."

"Despite having learning difficulties, she really liked using the computer they had at the adult literacy classes. So she bought one after saving up her wages from her cleaning job and it really helped with her reading. But I phished her email password off her, and stole her bank details from an email her boss sent her. Some retards need to learn their limitations the hard way. The internet is dangerous and should only be used by smart people like me. Others only have themselves to blame when they get hurt."

Combine it with the other announcement.

[DrYak]

The second part 'threat to the country's national security' on the other hand is such a broad term, it is basicly a blank check where they can fill in any sentence for any crime as they wish.

Now combine this with the other announcement: "UK Seeks To Hold Terrorism Trial In Secret" so such "threat the national security" rule also means that the trial get to be secret.

So I guess it's really about the second part, and the first part is only there to give it more weight: 'HACKERS MIGHT KILL YOU!'

Yup. To me it sounds like "You do something we don't like with a computer? We get the right to disappear you! For Life! Cause, you see, it's a matter of national security. Thus the trial is secret, and the sentence is life"

Re:Combine it with the other announcement.

[infolation]

Since embedded computers are so pervasive in domestic appliances, it seems as though some lateral thinking by the security services could result in all sorts of breaches of the law.

EG:

People have fridges with embedded computers, that can re-stock themselves with food by ordering online. Disrupting that computerised fridge could be seen as attempting to starve them to death with a computer:

'cause deadly civil unrest through cutting off food distribution, telecommunications networks or energy supplies'

So more than Rape then?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the average sentence for rape in the UK these days? I've seen 5-8 years listed on sites. Lets pretend things are better with 10 years
 
. Still not life..

Ladies put a Raspberry Pi in your knickers and say it's unauthorized access.

how many of the bankers went to jail...

[Karmashock]

you know the ones that caused the crash through corruption and fraud...

Exactly why do the hackers go to jail for making machines write "poop" on the home screen but bankers can cause literal trillions to evaporate and we just shrug?

Just curious...

Re:how many of the bankers went to jail...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just call them 'financial hackers'

Imprison the whole GCHQ for life?

[Kirth]

Obviously, GCHQ has done the most damage to "computer infrastructure" since the Morris worm, and funneled data about British citizens out of the country, into the hands of possible malign foreign actors.

The whole GCHQ should be arrested for treason.

Re:Imprison the whole GCHQ for life?

[Goose In Orbit]

"possible malign foreign actors"

That'll be the NSA then?

Re:Imprison the whole GCHQ for life?

[bugs2squash]

Not to mention that I remember multiple cases a few years back of large amounts of government data (tapes, laptops etc.) getting lost, it seemed, on a regular basis.Oh hey, wikipedia even has a page on it.

Re:Imprison the whole GCHQ for life?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a nice sight as well as a milestone in history to see 'The Doughnut' being swamped by the guys in blue with everyone on site being arrested.

Apparently it wouldn't be 'in the public interest' to prosecute anyone so they don't bother.

Not again

[Floyd-ATC]

Is this another case of "misguided politician hears about Watch Dogs"?

Unless Daddy runs the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the "Morris Worm", by Robert Tappan Morris. It's amazing how if your daddy runs the NSA, not only do you get no jail time but somehow your new job at MIT keeps your lab funded even through tight fiscal times as you produce nothing useful for 20 years.

Look up Robert Tappan Morris and the Computer Architecture Group at MIT. Must be nice to have guaranteed funding, because I've not seen that lab actually get anything *working*.

life sentences life in prison

[gsslay]

A life sentence does not equate to life in prison. They are almost always eligible for parole after 15 years.

Do what we say...

[gmuslera]

.. not what we do. What is doing the GCHQ would be worth to be in jail till the sun turns into nova.

Even peaceful use of technology could be seen as an hostile act by the authorities that actually use it as a weapon.

"threat to the country's national security"

[Anonymous Coward]

A "threat to the country's national security" is to be punished with a life sentence? Greenwald's husband was detained for something like 10 hours on heathrow because he was called a "threat to the country's national security" presumably in the context of transfering electronic documents. Next time round they want to be able to detain him for life?

What is it that makes fascism seem like such a good idea?

Re:"threat to the country's national security"

[KillAllNazis]

Fear.

Re: life sentences life in prison

[Opportunist]

Still has no relevance to the crime at hand. Rape? 5 years. Ruining the economy by embezzlement? Priceless, but free.

Why not punish the CEO of the hacked organization

[jbrohan]

There is a long tradition in UK of using horrific sentences to dissuade crime. Surely it is better to improve security by throwing a few CEOs or other well-paid company officers in Jail if they let their systems get hacked. "We should spend the money on MY BONUS not on the BORING computers"

Re: life sentences life in prison

[gsslay]

"Rape" and "ruining the economy by embezzlement" are not the topics of this article.

I'd support this

[Overzeetop]

A criminal negligence statute that all reasonable protections against hacking must be taken to secure customer data or data which affects a countries national security. Applicable to specifically to any company officer. Make safety of data a priority.

Let's rewrite that headline.

[Anonymous Coward]

Life Sentences For Serious Computerattacks Proposed In Britain

Re: life sentences life in prison

[Opportunist]

No, but good examples of real crimes.

Oi. The stupid. It hurts...

[Chas]

While I agree with longer sentences for repeat offenders, I can't really condone LIFE sentences for hacking/cracking.

You have people out there knifing, stabbing, shooting and strangling people when they're not just straight out beating them to death or killing them with a car.

You have people committing all sorts of frauds that cost people their life savings and endanger their health and well-being.

All of these people get slaps on the wrist. But a hacker/cracker should get life?

Uh. WHAT?

Basically this is yet another idiotic extension of "zero tolerance".

Prescribe a needlessly harsh punishment on the off chance you actually catch them (which isn't a deterrent), so you don't even have to think about it if they DO get caught.

This is ignorance and fear taking the reins.

fuck beta

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck beta man fuck it hard and shitless whore

"Life" != Life

[TractorBarry]

The phrase "life imprisonment" means nothing in the UK. Recently a man absconded from a prison who was said to be serving 3 life sentences. From reading the newspaper article reporting the case it transpired that his tariff was actually 13 years (sorry can't remember which paper or exact details).

So when being used by the UK justice system the term "life" would seem to refer to about an average dogs life. It's totally meaningless and quite frankly an insult to your intelligence.

This being the case "life" for computer related offences will probably mean you serve about 1/2 hour in an open prison - unless you take some money off someone powerful in which case you'll probably get a "life" sentence of about 10 years.

This doesn't take away fropm the fact that this is anoter pathetic, ill thought out, idea for legislation dreamt up by one of the useless cretins currently in parliament.

The UK justice system is a sad joke whose only purpose is to protect the rich and powerful (same as the world over really)

Re:"Life" != Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. The point of a life sentence in English law is that a criminal can be held in prison until he dies if he is found to be unrepentant and/or still dangerous. However, if he's judged to be reformed and safe he can come out after the minimum tariff without needing a retrial. This is a win-win.

Re:"Life" != Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Life never equals life, nor should it.

> . It's totally meaningless

10 years of your life is "totally meaningless"?! Really? That is a little under 1/3 of my life thus far. That would be my daughter going from a little girl to a teenager.

> This doesn't take away fropm the fact that this is anoter pathetic, ill thought out, idea for legislation dreamt up by one of the useless cretins currently in parliament.

Without making shit up, tell us why. It is not "hacking insto-life!", it is "within this reasonably well defined list, life can be used".

Translation =

[Grand Facade]

Those with the fat purses,
who own the computers,
do not wish to spend the $ to secure said computers.

Misuse is a pretty vague term
Hacking
impairing
Attacking
Are not far behind.

Re:Translation =

[flopsquad]

Burma Shave?

Re:Oi. The stupid. It hurts...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, the stupid does indeed hurt.

This is not "hack == life" it is "large crime (involving hacking) can now go up to life". You hack into your school computer and change your grades, you are not going to get life. You hack into /. to delete posts you disagree with, not gonna get life. Hack into playboy.com to get all the pictures, you are not going to get life. Create a virus that pops up pictures of your mum on infected computers, not going to get life.

You hack into the electricity company and turn off the power, you may get life.
You hack into the telecommunications gird during a random day, not likely to get life.
You hack into the telecommunications gird during a terrorist attack, you may get life.

What Could POSSIBLY Go Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm absolutely sure that no overzealous prosecutors will EVER use this to inflate the charges and try to extort a confession.

- See Schwartz, Aaron.

Smells like a planned way to...

[carlhaagen]

...label pretty much any hacking as "life-threatening or endangering the nation's security". I mean, we've seen this before, in how people who pirate TV shows and software are by American organizations pretty much labelled "terrorists".

Re:Smells like a planned way to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Example please.

Sensationist Bullshit

[Martin S.]

The linked story is Sensationist Bullshit, there is no such measure announced in the Queens speech, (Queens-Speech-2014-The-full-transcript)

The planned "Serious Crime Bill" will ensure sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause.

Given the current Computer Misuse act is absolutely useless this is a good move.

Will they include MI5, MI6 and GCHQ?

[Lawrence_Bird]

the whole "cyberattack" thing is grossly overblown and is primarily a) outrage of US/UK against those doing the same to it as it does to them and b) a mega growth industry to complement or be absorbed by the current military industrial complex.

Encouraging another Snowden?

[pauljosaph]

Encouraging another Snowden? That sounds like a "significant risk" to national security - that'll be a one life sentence for you. On top of that, it could easily lead to "social disruption". That'll be another 14 years.

Too inflated already

[king neckbeard]

Computer related crimes are already too inflated already, and there are means for which most any serious intrusion could be met with stacked charges. There are probably one or two cases a decade where this might be needed, but I suspect it will be abused far more often than that, especially since 'national security' is involved.

um

[Charliemopps]

How long do you think it will take for them to apply this to some high-school senior that hacks his grades or something? A month?

Idiots

[koan]

They rarely give life sentences for murder, but OMG computer crime? You're done.

How about we start with...

[TeknoHog]

life sentences for people who say cyber when they mean "IT related".

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are the perp of a cyberattack and you cause damage and/or cause deaths, you should be charged with the appropriate crimes.

Much like in the US...

[morgauxo]

...the penalties are worse for asaulting a computer than they are for asaulting a person!

Re:Much like in the US...

[Morpeth]

I was thinking the same thing -- never known anyone getting life for aggravated assault, even for attempted murder. Seems like a terribly written law that could be very easily be broadly applied and abused by UK authorities.

I wonder

[casner]

how the UK gov gets such ideas...? because frankly such concepts would never cross my mind...

This is not the right response

[mysidia]

The real bad guys are simply undeterred by this, and botnets continue to expand.

Also... this seems wrong... it's like elevating a petty theft to a felony, because of some technicality, the thief wouldn't even have known about.

The real severe sentence should be on the folks who negligently designed computer networks that were susceptible to easy attack, And/OR the folks who broke policies and allowed them to come under attack.

For example: If you plug your waterworks into the internet, and some hacker logs in and screws it up, because some worker was surfing using Internet Explorer from a control system and "accidentally" deployed malware.

It's not the hacker alone that should be sentenced for this crime, we should also sentence to an even longer term:

(1) The designer, who allowed the control network to connect to the internet, OR

(2) The admin/contracter, who connected a point on the control network to the internet contrary to the policies, OR

(3) The end user who breached policies by plugging in an additional connection or USB stick

Similarly.... facilitating a DDoS by failing to take measures to prevent IP source address spoofing should be a crime.

Re:This is not the right response

[Shadowmist]

You don't get a pass for sticking a spear in someone's chest, just because they exposed their belly.

Re:This is not the right response

[mysidia]

You don't get a pass for sticking a spear in someone's chest, just because they exposed their belly.

It's an irrelevent analogy. A computer system is not someone's belly.

A more apt analogy is: Some shortsighted folks decided to setup a little tent somewhere in the middle of the interstate, and lie down to take a nap: and they are proposing to execute anyone running over these folks while they were asleep in their tent.

Re:This is not the right response

[Shadowmist]

Vandalism, malicious mischief, and greater crimes are the crimes they are no matter what means they produced by. If the means is by computer hacking, that doesn't make the harm any less severe.

Free power for all europe

[Kinky_B]

Quick some one find Sir Winston Churchill and wrap him in copper wiring... the rate he must be spinning will give us power for the rest of eternity! between this and the earlier story..... Land of the free my rear. (comment changed to avoid harming the kiddies) What our fathers bled to stop is here and now in our own fair island The people are sheep! Long live the vision of Orwell, a prophet before his time.

Re:Ads Disabled? Really?

[ColdWetDog]

What the fuck is up with the 'Ads Disabled' feature being broken since last night? It's like /. is doing everything they can to drive away long time users.

Never ascribe to malevolence that which can be adequately accounted for by incompetence.

I remain opposed to the death penalty but .....

[Shadowmist]

.... they have a point. The interdependence of and increasingly wide spread use of computer controlled systems means that it's not a matter of if but when some malicious hacker is going to commit an act which brings widespread devastation, financial damage, perhaps even death. It's no longer just phreaking with the blue boxes any more kiddies. That's why I want to seriously know how Google is going to guard it's self driving cars against deliberate acts of malice. And I'm hoping that the U.S. military is keeping a similarly paranoid look at the possibility of remote drone hijacking. I still don't believe in the death penalty, but crimes committed through computer hacking should be punished on a scale that fits the damage they do, both intentional and collateral.

Re:Why not punish the CEO of the hacked organizati

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Don't be any more transparent in your "I hate the rich" rant or anything.
 
Anything the rich do wrong should be punished by prison time, being buried in an ant mound with honey poured on their heads and a loss of all assets, even for jaywalking. HERP!!!!!

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

>resulting in ... threat to the country's national security.

So, like damage to the UK's reputation?

Proporionate to other UK sentencing laws?

[Morpeth]

Anyone from the UK care to comment. Because I never thought of the UK as being draconian in their sentencing (if anything, a little light on some crimes).

What's the sentencing range for serious crimes like rape, aggravated assault, attempted murder, or causing serious bodily harm, etc? I mean do people get life for causing serious injury in the UK? I doubt it, so why does a football hooligan not get life for beating someone severely, but equivalently hurting someone with a computer merits life? Sounds like the UK it taking a lead from the US (and that's not a compliment)

Re:Proporionate to other UK sentencing laws?

[Ash-Fox]

What's the sentencing range for serious crimes like rape, aggravated assault, attempted murder, or causing serious bodily harm, etc?

From what I have observed here in the UK, there is a very large disparity between sex of the person. Women tend to get off a lot of things easily, such as raping a child? 30 days. A man, using the exact same excuses? 60 years.

I mean do people get life for causing serious injury in the UK?

Circumstances always apply from what I have seen. It seems if it is your first offence in anything serious (beyond petty shoplifting, being drunk etc,), it not likely you would have a lifetime on anything.

10 years, No Computers Sufficient

[esten]

10 years and no computer access should be sufficient, they would be mostly harmless by then with technology advancing

But other crimes for injury and death could be added on instead of just a blank life sentence.

I am betting the spoofed ip is the guy going to

[Anonymous Coward]

Die.

legal question

[Anonymous Coward]

so if i booby-trap my files and the clubberment decides to have a peak (nevermind laws on privacy) and downloads 'em
and the trap springs and they all die horrible in a nuclear melt down ... no wait ... get really badly irradiated and have bad-ass gens for like .. foreva ... was that my fault?
'cause i'm booby-trapping away right now : )

Why not the death sentence while You're at it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Start by arresting and imprisoning for life GCHQ operatives and the government officials who approved the hacking millions of innocent people.

Re:Oi. The stupid. It hurts...

[Hypotensive]

The killing people with a car touches a nerve.

In the UK you can just run over a pedestrian and kill them and it's treated much more leniently than armed robbery even if you killed nobody.

Now you'll get life imprisonment for hacking GreedCo's computer and showing that they paid the CEO more in a day than all the lowest ranked employees put together earned in a year.

Actual humans? Meh. But some fat cat's profits? They must be protected at all costs.

Our dystopian future

[adndgamer]

In the future, corporations and computers are protected by laws but people are not.

"Life" != Life

[wosmo]

'life sentence' has a very specific meaning in UK law. Up to 15 years if it's not murder, up to 30 years if it is murder. This is why we charge people with multiple murders - we can't imprison them "until you die", but we can imprison them for 3*life.

There does exist "whole life order" which is closer to the US definition of "life sentence", but it's an extraordinary response to, well, the extraordinary. (and comes with its own restrictions. You can be charged with murder under the age of 21. You can be sentenced to Life under the age of 21. You *cannot* receive a "whole life order" under the age of 21.)