Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Guardian: Government plans that mean computer users deemed to have damaged national security, the economy or the environment will face a life sentence have been criticised by experts who warn that the new law could be used to target legitimate whistleblowers. The proposed legislation would mean that any British person deemed to have carried out an unauthorised act on a computer that resulted in damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security in any country would face a possible life sentence. Last week the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised concerns about the proposals and the scope of such legislation.

Comments

could be?

[Trailer Trash]

Government plans that mean computer users deemed to have damaged national security, the economy or the environment will face a life sentence have been criticised by experts who warn that the new law could be used to target legitimate whistleblowers.

Could be? Come on - targeting whistleblowers is the point. It's not about damaging national security, the economy or the environment - it's about damaging somebody's political career.

Don't do the crime

[smooth wombat]

deemed to have carried out an unauthorised act on a computer

I know this is a radical idea, and I'm just spitballing here, but maybe the part about unauthorized act being done a computer should be a hint. If it's not your computer or your system, don't try to get into it.

Or are we going to use excuses as to why it's acceptable to try and get into someone else's equipment when you're not supposed to then whine about the penalty when you're found out?

Re:Don't do the crime

[Lunix Nutcase]

Why would that act in and off itself even remotely warrant life in prison?

Re:Don't do the crime

[DarkOx]

The problems are its not always getting a shell. What if you violate a websites TOS, is that an unauthorized act?

What does damage national security mean, If I post about how Minister X lied about Y 10 years ago does that erode society's faith in its officials and by extension "threaten national security"?

There are bright lines such as bypassing an authentication mechanism; deliberate insertion of abnormally structured data designed to alter application behavior (injection attacks); that could be defined in laws like this. Its very possible to write laws governing computer access that are both inclusive to allow interpretations to cover changing and new technology and still be specific enough a reasonable people can agree on if a specific act meets the criteria.

Groups like OWASP have done the work; we now have good working definitions and generic criteria for describing attacks and abuse. Its not '92 anymore where public network access was a new thing.

There are two reasons overly broad laws like this are being written both equally scary. 1) The people writing and enacting them remain profoundly ignorant of topics that pretty much effect every aspect of the economy today. 2) They want them overly broad because it makes for a nice blunt instrument to shutdown anything that threatens the status quo.

But let the bankers off.

[John Jamieson]

So Bankers that damage the world economy face no time in jail and no fines, but the whistle blower can get life?

Sounds about right for this messed up world.

Re:Not inherently unreasonable

[taikedz]

Except that this has nothing to do with "attacks". The word "damage" is also applied to the "trust" and "credibility" of governmental institutions.

This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.

Re:Here we go again

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Nobody has an issue with jailing people for life if they've intruded upon a secure network with the intent to cause damage or inconvenience

Um... Sorry, but I for one have a big problem with that.

Leaving aside legitimate questions about the role of incarceration and its effectiveness as a deterrent and/or for rehabilitation of offenders, a life sentence is the kind of thing you hand down for premeditated murder, deliberately taking the life of another human being.

It is absurd to suggest that the same sanction should apply to someone who merely hacks some corporation's network and messes with the office printer in an irritating but otherwise harmless protest against some corporate policy. Such a law would imply that physically harmless hacking of some corporate or government entity is many times worse than rape, killing someone accidentally through dangerous driving, defrauding an individual of their life savings, and numerous other very personal and very damaging crimes.

Wow, just wow.

[gurps_npc]

That law is so vague it applies to ANYTHING.

"damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security in any country"

First note that it allows for damaging the national security in any country. So the UK is now the world police? Hey, I thought that was the USA's job! Also, does that mean they will protect ISIL? Or North Korea? Does that mean when the government of South Korea attempts to defend itself from a cyberattack from North Korea, they are violating the UK's law? It's damaging the National Security of North Korea by preventing them from undermining South Korea!

Human welfare, the environment, the economy or National security pretty much covers ANYTHING. And the word damage is similarly vague.

When I use Hack BP's computer and find out they are illegally dumping oil in Scotland, isn't that damaging the economy by revealing BP's crime?

When the FBI pretends to be a criminal on Facebook, isn't that damaging the 'welfare" of the human criminal?

This is a law designed to let the UK selectively arrest anyone who does anything on a computer that is 'unauthorised'.

Worst law ever

Murder is the preferred option apparently

[butchersong]

So if your boss and your bosses bosses are acting in ways that you deem inapropriate and in violation of their duties to the citizens of the UK you're better off killling them now than exposing them. You might get off in just a few years.

Re:Seriously

[DarkOx]

Not really the reporter knows everyone who cares enough to listen to anything holder says already is perfectly aware of the true answer to that question at least in Eric's opinion.

Whistle-blowers are great as long as they are embarrassing my political enemies, in which case I am thrilled to stand up for strong protections and will gladly come up with some elaborate construct to make it morally equivalent something people get whipped up about like civil rights or something. In all other cases I perceive them as threat as a threat to the status quo and my crony buddies; I'am prepared to invent some wild construct to tie it to "national security" because that way everything is "on the table", I don't mind sounding "insane" to anyone actually listening because my buddies will brand anyone listening as "insane".