Slashdot Mirror
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."'
http://listverse.com/2012/07/2...
How about for corruption, embezzlement and all the other ways criminals and terrorists outright destroy the lives of citizens daily?
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!'
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.
...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.
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 ]
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"
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.
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 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.
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.