Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Life Sentences For Serious Cyberattacks Proposed In Britain

Posted by samzenpus on from the do-not-pass-go dept.

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."'

27 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by johnjaydk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stupid gits.

    --
    TCAP-Abort
    1. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by infolation · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by Number42 · · Score: 2

      Stupid svns

      FTFY.

    5. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by vivian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Why not the death sentence while You're at it? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. if they float they are guilty by ei4anb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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...

    1. Re:if they float they are guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Real hackers only use int.

    2. Re:if they float they are guilty by ewanm89 · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:if they float they are guilty by laejoh · · Score: 2

      Ah, duck typing!

  3. Life Sentences! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Life Sentences! by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Life Sentences! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Another case of 'same, but with a computer' by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!'

    1. Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer' by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    2. Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer' by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Another case of 'same, but with a computer' by is+not+primary · · Score: 2

      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

  5. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  6. Loss of life by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    1. Re:Loss of life by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  7. This is why no Briton.... by metrix007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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...

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  8. Combine it with the other announcement. by DrYak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  9. "Life" != Life by TractorBarry · · Score: 2

    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)

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  10. Sensationist Bullshit by Martin+S. · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.