US considers jailing hackers for life

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
And I don't see where I was suggesting that somebody be imprisioned without due process. Hence, my fear of filing this under the homeland security.

Never said you were. My comment was in hopes that they will stop doing that and treat "hackers" (damn the media for ruining that word) correctly and with the rights they deserve as American citizens.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would offer a reward for anybody who could break into a supposedly critical Gov. computer.

Do you want me to step on your neck?


Does anyone have a link to the actual law? I'm trying to find it but until then I will reserve judgement on what this law means. This thread has all the same attributes as the Patriot Act threads. Just a bunch of parrots repeating a headline.

"The sky is falling"-- Chicken Little.

 

[n0cmonkey]

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=477
^Who voted for what

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03482:
^Text of the bill

 

[Moonbeam]

As to my neck: Not at the risk of you getting lead poisoning.


And how will reading the law reduce parroting? Don't people see what they want anyway?

 

[BoberFett]

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.+5710:">H.R.5710 - Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
</a>

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=477
^Who voted for what

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03482:
^Text of the bill

Thanks for the links. Here's the relevant section alluded to by the news article:

Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (3);

(2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4), by inserting `except as provided in paragraph (5),' before `a fine under this title';

(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C) and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and

`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.

So Dave was right. 😉

 

[BoberFett]

Here's the portion strengthening penalties

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=477
^Who voted for what

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03482:
^Text of the bill

Thanks for the links. Here's the relevant section alluded to by the news article:

Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (3);

(2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4), by inserting `except as provided in paragraph (5),' before `a fine under this title';

(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C) and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and

`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.

So Dave was right. 😉

Boberfett's link may be better, havent looked at either of them. Everytime I see one of these laws I remember how much I hate lawyers.

 

[Vic]

Murderers and rapists get 5-10 years, hackers get life....

Our laws are protecting who now? :disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

I would, if I were running the government, offer a reward for anybody who could break into a supposedly critical computer.

 

[Yomicron]

I find it scarry that this portion had already passed the house with so many votes.

In July, the full House approved CSEA by a 385-to-3 vote, but it died in the Senate. By inserting CSEA into the Homeland Security bill, the measure's backers are hoping for a second chance before Congress adjourns for the holidays.

Vote results for original bill

 

[Jugernot]

Personally, I think wWe can do better. I'm developing a program that senses the hacker's intent before he acts. It will require everyone to get a new keyboard with embedded telepathic sensors. When your system senses alicious intentions, it calls up a gigantic hand that reaches through the screen and chokes the perp. It then wipes his hard drive and burns the room in which the machine is located.

Uhhhh, it's called Windows XP....

 

[Blieb]

@@

 

[BoberFett]

I don't have enough time to do a lot of reserach right now, but that bill refers to a "protected system" as

(A) means any service, physical or computer-based system, process, or procedure that directly or indirectly affects the viability of a facility of critical infrastructure; and

(B) includes any physical or computer-based system, including a computer, computer system, computer or communications network, or any component hardware or element thereof, software program, processing instructions, or information or data in transmission or storage therein, irrespective of the medium of transmission or storage.

The part that kind of bugs me is "indirectly affects". The internet is one massive system with lots of parts. Not saying that it will happen, but copyright holders (read: RIAA, MPAA) could pressure the govt to go after purveyors of P2P software providers under the guise of consuming too much bandwidth and preventing Homeland Security Agencies from doing their job, thereby aiding terrorists.

It's a stretch, but corporate greed knows no boundaries.

 

[Michael]

It seems to me that anyone who attempts to murder or maim by attacking computer systems (e.g. the air traffic control systems at an airport/FAA regional center or the control systems at a nuclear power plant) deserve life imprisonment.

Michael

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Michael
It seems to me that anyone who attempts to murder or maim by attacking computer systems (e.g. the air traffic control systems at an airport/FAA regional center or the control systems at a nuclear power plant) deserve life imprisonment.

Michael

It's not only kill or attempt to kill. If you recklessly cause death it's life in prison. Normally recklessly causing death is called manslaughter, and is not punished with life in prison.

 

[FuZoR]

hacking... life??? I guess it depends on the what is being hacked... but come on.

Murderers and rapists get 5-10 years, hackers get life....

the legal system is BS.

Someone needs to burn it and rewrite the whole thing.

 

[Michael]

"Recklessly Causing Death" is different depending on the circumstances. Drive like an idiot and kill someone = manslaughter. Get drunk, then drive and kill someone can be much more serious. Get mad in a bar and punch someone and they die can be tried as murder. This law doesn't seem to be any different than existing laws, it is just being specific about computer systems.

As a long, long time 2600 reader and someone who has been involved in the hacker culture since he was 14-15 (Apple ][+ with a 300 baud modem dialing into pirate BBSes - switching quickly to learning what they do to prevent it and then a long and existing career in auditing and internal controls), I formed an opinion on Kevin Mitnick. He was a crook and a con man and he was caught (several times). I don't think he received any less of a fair shake than the average crook does and he had proven that he would run if let free (based on his past actions). I, however, agreed with the pressure and attention on the government that came out of the case.

I think that "trust but verify" is always a good idea when dealing with the government. That is why I may disagree with the opinions of people like Harvey but know that I need them as much as they need me. So I think the new law is a good one, but I'm happier that it is being opposed and discussed by people who do not like it.

Michael

 

[pecel]

Why in the hell they get busy because of Hacker?
Go and Kill Osama Bin Laden first, then take care hacker :|