Computer misuse: Brits could face LIFE IN PRISON for serious hacking offences British computer hackers who severely damage the national security of any country could face life in prison under a new criminal offence proposed in the Serious Crime Bill, however the plan has been attacked for lacking legal certainty by MPs and peers. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the alarm last Friday, after …
Hacker: I look down on him because I do serious crime.
Murderer: I look up to him ↑ because he does serious crime; but I look down on him ↓ because he is just a bit of a lad. I don't do very serious crime.
Bit of a lad: I know my place. I look up to them both. But I don't look up to the murderer as much as I look up to then hacker, because he has got real terrorist potential.
Hacker: I have got real terrorist potential, but I don't kill people. So sometimes I look up to the murderer.
Murderer: I still look up to the hacker because although I kill people, I am vulgar. But I am not as vulgar as the lad so I still look down on him.
Lad: I know my place. I look up to them both; but while I am a penniless thieving wanker, I am industrious and trustworthy. Had I the inclination, I could look down on them. But I don't.
We all know our place, but what do we get out of it?
Hacker: I get life in jail.
Murderer: I get 5 years and a feeling of inferiority from the hacker, but a feeling of superiority over the thieving wankers.
Lad: I get stopped and searched. Every day.
(apologies to Python)
ITYM "apologies to "The Frost Report"" (notably Ronnies Barker and Corbett are in this sketch...)
As with the 4 Yorkshiremen (originally from the "At last the 1948 show", with Cleese, Chapman, Brooke-Taylor and Feldman), many sketches are attributed to the Pythons, and indeed now performed by the Pythons, that were not their material, which may be why their reputation is enhanced beyond their actual talent...in my opinion. They were good, but not as good as the goggles of edited hindsight suggest.
I'm officially old enough to be a pedantic curmudgeon.
...if I hack (not that I'd have a clue how to) into the Israeli defence force and told a load of Palestinians that they we're going to lob a load of cluster bombs in the general area of a Hamas leader. Will I be charged as i clearly have SAVED a lot of lives.
Actually take it further....
Do the above and inform a Hamas leader he is about to be assassinated at 3pm outside the mosque, so he avoids the assassination.
Israel may say I have compromised the security of a nation, but the Palestinians will say I saved the security of a nation.
One man's terrorist and all that.
"if I hack (not that I'd have a clue how to) into the Israeli defence force and told a load of Palestinians that they we're going to lob a load of cluster bombs in the general area of a Hamas leader. Will I be charged as i clearly have SAVED a lot of lives."
No you haven't. You've aided and abetted a terrorist. The computer misuse act will be the least of your worries, as you quite rightly board a plane for gitmo/wherever, never to be seen again.
"I thought it was obvious enough that the joke icon wasn't needed?"
The trouble is, there really are people out there that will have this opinion for real, not just in jest. How are we to know unless the icons are used?
I've just had a look through some previous postings and it's clear the joker is not an outrageous lunatic, but who does that every time they read a comment that might or might not be for real?
"How many laws have we got already?"
I lost count after NuLabour added 3000 more criminal offences to the statute books. Many of them were poorly drafted by single issue pressure group consultants. Too many left the matter of ambiguous details to the appeal courts to sort out if/when the Police/CPS saw an opportunity for mission creep "pour encourager les autres".
To be honest we really do need a damn good clear-out of most of this cruft. An automatic sunset clause would probably do the trick nicely. So, if a law has languished unused for more than one calendar year, then it automatically gets repealed, unless a free majority vote of Parliament rescues it for another year.
That would either make Parliament run round like a headless chicken continually voting to rescue unused and unloved laws (which would preclude their enacting any more), or it would rapidly reduce the number of laws on the statute books to a workable minimum.
Added to this, there needs to be a stringent limit on the amount of secondary legislation permitted. This is things such as those regulations permitted by such acts as the European Communities Act, an enabler which permits laws to be brought into force without going through Parliament. As this is bypassing the regulatory chambers we have, it is introducing an awful lot of complete gibberish onto the statute books unseen and unread by Parliament.
To provide greater clarity on this point, therefore, Amendment 17 replaces the reference to damage to human welfare in any country with a reference to damage to human welfare in any place. Amendment 18 similarly replaces the reference to damage to the environment in any country with a reference to damage to the environment of any place.
So what's the definition of "any place". Are they about to outlaw interplanetary hacking? Inter-galactic? Have they taken the possibility of the multi-verse into account?
So what's the definition of "any place". Are they about to outlaw interplanetary hacking? Inter-galactic? Have they taken the possibility of the multi-verse into account? .... smudge
Howdy, smudge,
Pity the poor stupid legalised idiot who would imagine they have any jurisdiction in the Live Operational Virtual Environment Space/Cyberspace Place.
Dutch Initiative ....... https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/10/the-dutch-defense-cyber-command-a-new-operational-capability-colonel-hans-folmer-2014/ heralding dDutch Initiative ..... http://www.ur2die4.com/ddutch-initiative/
AIVD/MIVD showing MI5/MI6/NSA/CIA the Future Way?
AIVD/MIVD showing MI5/MI6/NSA/CIA the Future Way?
Or are they just into better copying and deploying their Type Skunkworks Shenanigans?
Either way, Bravo, Nederlands. Late to the party maybe but the fun and games are only just starting and in dire straits need of some novel direction in these stoned age times full of crazies and wannabe Napoleons.
To challenge assertations that skimpy clothing cause earthquakes, you will remember that a group of women organized over the internet to spend a day wearing skimpy clothing, during which time there was an earthquake.
If there is a case for prosecution under this law for such events, I point and laugh at this law.
"necessary to overhaul the Computer Misuse Act 1990 so as the British government could fall in line with the EU."
Don't the government want to opt out of some EU legislation that isn't convenient?
I personally think the whole UKIP thing is right-wing political maneauvering in order to get support for dropping most of the socialist directives of the EU, such as Human Rights.
"prevent individuals from obtaining tools such as malware with the intention to personally commit a cyber crime."
As Malware is often delivered unsolicited, all they'd need additionally is a thoughtles tweet, blog post etc that criticises the current status quo of modern society in some way (and it won't matter if it's tongue in cheek as law givers and enforcers don't have a concept of a sense of humour).
I notice also 'individuals'. So their intent is that corporations/governments are allowed to obtain Malware then?
Life Imprisonment is a ridiculous idea as well, have they forgotten that the prison system is (a) flawed as a reformation system, (b) not up to dealing with more long-stay detaines, (c) We are a small landmass. unlike America, which still has plenty of space. I'd remind the 'Empire remembering' establishment that Australia is picky about it's immigrants these days, and all you've left is the Falklands, which also has finite space.
"prevent individuals from obtaining tools such as malware with the intention to personally commit a cyber crime."
This is already covered by the amendments made to the Computer Misuse Act by The Police and Justice Act 2006 which made it an offence to make, supply or obtain articles for use in a computer misuse offence see
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Police_and_Justice_Bill_2006#Making.2C_supplying_or_obtaining_articles_for_use_in_computer_misuse_offences
Part and parcel of moving towards a Plea Bargain based legal system ("Plead guilty and we'll give you five years, else we'll go to trial and you'll be in prison for life."). It can really avoid the expenses and effort involved with those pesky trials.
Also useful for putting just about *anyone* in prison for five years.
"It also does not enable UK law enforcement agencies to take action against UK citizens committing cyber crime offences whilst physically outside the UK on the basis of their nationality alone."
Good, and that is the way it should stay. Whilst I quite agree that some really really serious crimes should allow extra-territorial jurisdiction (crimes against humanity for instance), hacking certainly isn't one - let the country where you perform the act in prosecute the act.
It seems that lawmakers everywhere only know how to over react to topical threats. Simply creating an offense does not equate to enforcing those offenses.
To begin with, these "lawmakers" (EVERYWHERE) don't even understand the difference between hackers and crackers, let alone understanding the principle of the Punishment must fit the Crime.
A 13 year old who hacks into the school records database to increase his grade (get him a job)does not deserve the same inexorable punishment as some one who cracks a banks security and steals the last two digits of every transaction for 5 years (Give him the same penalty as Grand Theft).
No consideration is given in any case to those security researchers who are trying to find out how a particular piece of malware works, the cops know better, then mere possession of malware for any purpose will land you in the slammer.
The general vagueness of the offenses contained in the law is ridiculous as they can grass up ANYONE for almost ANY reason.
And nowhere does it even hint at making the computer user/company being cracked responsible for providing a level of security one would expect for the sums of money involved. Too many get off scott free even though it was THEIR lack of security that allowed the cracker to steal OUR money.
Personally, if the password was guessed and that password is P@ssw0rd, then maybe the real criminal is not the hacker but the user. I think there are some celebutard iCloud users that fit that description.
The drafting is fundamentally flawed at the most basic level. In some cases it is clearly intended that a list of conditions shoudl be logically ANDed together in another place that they should be logically ORed together with no text at all to distinguish between the to cases. This is just broken. Which interpretation will prefail?
At a more fundamental level why do we need it? I am still very sceptical about the idea of hacking causing deaths and similar and for the all the most serious consequences surely we have enough laws already to cover death, serious economic damage etc.
I have citizenship of, and passports from, three countries and work in a fourth.
My employer supplies legally manufactured military electronic equipment, designed/fabricated in the fourth country, whose political interests are adverse to the first three countries. The fourth country supports, and recognises, countries in Eastern Asia and Middle East.
Presently we market most of our products through a government arms agency, as do the other countries.
The question arises is just whose legislation prevails?
This the the problem when the UK or the US extends it's 'jurisdiction' beyond it's recognised territory.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
