Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Do you have ESP?
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?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
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.
-- "Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability." --Dijkstra
The problem with this law is that it will later be abused by whatever party or coalition is in power at the next election. 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, but the scope of the law's potential application is so broad it will ensare mostly innocuous behaviour if the government of the day decides it wants to be seen as tough on crime.
Terrorists? Jail them for life. Whistleblowers? All major parties publicly encourage whistleblowers in the NHS and so on, so why should the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition get away with passing a law which criminalises their whistleblowing?
...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.
What about politicians that do the same thing? Oh, I guess that would an "authorized" act. Never mind.
[ Man, oh man, if we could jail politicians for damaging the economy, environment or human welfare here in the U.S. ...]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If you attack an industrial system at a utility and make a bunch of people sick or die, even if it was "unintentional" you should get life
...and you almost certainly would, with no changes required to current law. Well...I don't know about the UK, but in the USA if you cause the death of another human being, that's homicide. There's a spectrum from Involuntary Manslaughter up to Premeditated Murder. Using a poison or a machine to do it doesn't change anything.
So you can get rid of the "injuring people" argument. This law would only change what happens when nobody is physically harmed.
Eric Holder gave a televised interview in which he credited a whistle blower at a bank for allowing the bank executives to be held to account for their part in making money off liar's loans. The reporter missed the obvious follow-up question to Holder, "So whistleblowers are good?"
If you attack an industrial system at a utility and make a bunch of people sick or die, even if it was "unintentional" you should get life.
If you attack an industrial system and people get sick or die as a result then there are already plenty of laws to punish you, up to and including the likes of manslaughter and murder. There is nothing special about doing so via computer and no additional laws are required, nor is any "zero tolerance" style life sentence just because computers were involved a useful addition to the statute books.
Even if you're an aspie with boundless curiosity, there has to be a consequence for breaking into sensitive systems and inflicting real, measurable harm to the public.
And there would be -- if, in the judgement of a competent court, there was in fact real, measurable harm caused to the public. But this proposal as reported seems to be full of words like "deemed to cause" (by whom?) or "significant risk of" (measured how?).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"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
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
The attacker is already established by precedent. Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime. Aunt Tilly didn't have any intent so she's not guilty. The person who created the emoticon hack was intending to do commit a crime.
The victim is anyone who suffered loss. The company and anyone whose password was stolen in this case.
This really is a solved problem in law.
Most crimes have a "Mens rea"
Yes that is why I asked if the requirement was more than negligent. Negligent basically means you formed no intent; specifically you did not for see the particular consequences of your actions or possibly inaction.
Consider this, suppose I buy some candy out of the back of some guys white van in parking lot. I bring it into the kids preschool for snack. All the kids die. I would totally be up for manslaughter. The mens rea would be negligent. I was just being a cheap bastard, did not mean anyone any harm but should have known better.
We might argue similarly about Tilly or Bobby. They should have known better than to be pasting crap from some untrusted website, but... the kitten looked like it had a smile.. yea well.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Who will they send to jail for life when a corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Oracle, Google, Mozilla release known buggy and insecure software to get it out the door and patch later? That sure in hell is national security issue.
Jack of all trades,master of none
IN old england, the prisons became so over crowded they started using the rotting hulks of navy ships as prisons and as that became full they resorted to "transportation" which basically meant you get a one way ticket to help settle australia. (see book "the Fatal Shore"). Now that mars transport is about to approach feasibility ans Elon Musk says we need vast numbers of people for sustainable living I'm shocked the UK govt isn't sentencing these hackers to Transportation.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
it's called Treason. It's also very, very hard to prove. This is just an attempt to get around those laws so they can punish people without all the red tape of due process.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/