Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

UK Hackers Face Antisocial Behaviour Orders 444

Posted by Zonk
from the we-have-everything-but-the-orders-here dept.
ukhackster writes "The UK government has proposed that suspected cybercriminals could be banned from the Internet or have their PCs seized, even if they've not been convicted. These so-called Asbos have typically been used against teenage hoodlums or small-time crooks, but now they're gunning for organised criminals." From the article: "Asbos give the courts almost unlimited powers when imposing conditions on the person receiving the order. Under the Home Office proposals, the courts would have almost unlimited discretion to impose the order if they believe it probable that a suspect had 'acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime.' In a civil court, hearsay is admissible evidence, and the burden of proof is lighter than criminal courts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Hackers Face Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Comments Filter:
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @11:34AM (#15736855) Homepage Journal
    Wikipedia's article on ASBOs [wikipedia.org] provides interesting reading on the subject. The article is a bit of a mess, but there is decent info in it, and the links list at the end is well worth perusing. These things are used against everything from vandals and thieves to hat-wearers.
  • by ettlz (639203) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @11:40AM (#15736915) Journal

    There, I've said it. I am ashamed of my own government. I am disgusted at their blantant disregard for freedom, and the human "rights" they claim to champion. I abhor their reactionary, quasi-populist approach to law enforcement that will ultimately criminalise non-conformists. I denounce their fear-mongering, alarmist, despicable manipulation of the public (90 days' detention without trial? All your private keys are belng to us?).

    UK Slashdotters: let's make sure we punish these lunatics at the next general election.

  • by gerddie (173963) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @11:41AM (#15736928)
    Suspected cybercriminals could also have severe limitations imposed on their financial dealings, requiring them to use "notified financial instruments" such as credit cards and bank accounts, and limit the amount of cash they can carry.
    Thank you for your input.
  • by Pancake Bandit (987571) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @11:53AM (#15737043)
    Sidenote for anyone who thinks it's funny to call it "antisocial behavior":

    This refers to an antisocial personality disorder. This doesn't mean introversion, but someone who has no morals, remorse for wrongdoing or any capability of foresight. People with an APD are the stereotypical criminal masterminds or street-smart con-men. They are often charming at first, but their only motivation is their own desires. They can be fantastic at acting, pretending to be sorry, but see society as nothing more than a game to win, at any cost.

    Diagnostic Criteria in the US [mentalhealth.com]

    But yeah, this legislation is a bunch of crap.

  • by 'nother poster (700681) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @12:22PM (#15737334)
    The RICO laws in the U.S. go back much further than the 1980's, that's just when the government started using them for simple possesion cases. I forget which city first started using RICO for that purpose, but it took off quickly. The courts have said that RICO is Constitutional because if you aren't convicted you can petition to get your property back, and that if the property has been disposed of you must be compensated. That said, I'm with you, it's bullshit pure and simple.
  • by evilandi (2800) <andrew@aoakley.com> on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @12:29PM (#15737427) Homepage
    I think you're misunderstanding how ASBOs and restraining orders work.

    With a restraining order, the prosecution asks the Judge to command the defendant not to do a bunch of unplesant things. If the defendant ignores this, and does those things, and that is proven in court, then and only then does he go to jail

    With an ASBO, the prosecution asks the Judge to command the defendant not to do a bunch of unplesant things, and sets some penalties, such as having his PC confiscated or whatever if he ignores the order. If the defendant ignores the order, and does those things, and that is proven in court, then and only then does he have his PC confiscated or whatever.

    The judge absolutely cannot order the guy's PC to be taken away or whatever, without proving breach of the order in court.

    So it goes to court not once but twice. Firstly the Judge has to ascertain that there is sufficient grounds for granting the order, and secondly a jury has to be convinced that the order was breached.

    Your remaining reservations are equally as valid against restraining orders, which have worked well for decades without anyone having a valid problem.
  • by Elektroschock (659467) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @12:30PM (#15737440)
    Let's don't forget the upcoming European IPRED2 [europa.eu]:

    Article 3 Offences

    Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.
    ...

    Article 7 Joint investigation teams

    The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.


    Article 8: Initiation of criminal proceedings

    Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.


    Here you find the list of responsible rapporteurs in parliament [europa.eu]. If you think the formula infringement==crime is wrong it would be appropriate to take action now.

    The source of IPRED2 is Jacqueline Minor from DG Internal Market, who also started the software patents directive project. Here she want to mess up criminal law of the member states.
  • That is how ASBOs work, but TFA isn't about them: it's about the proposals in a Home Office green paper to introduce legislation allowing a new kind of order called a "Serious Crime Prevention Order". I reckon HMG is spinning these as being "similar to ASBOs" because that way people think it's no worse than banning some 14 year old shoplifter from a town centre, but if you read the article, or even better [PDF warning] the green paper, [homeoffice.gov.uk] you'll find this is very different in scope and implementation. The mention of ASBOs in relation to this is a red herring which has done a very effective job of throwing the ZDnet journalist off the scent.

  • by loraksus (171574) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @12:59PM (#15737712) Homepage
    They're only imposed on people where it's quite obvious that they are behaving anti-socially

    Riight.. They have never, ever, been abused. They'd never, for instance be used for fare dodgers [bbc.co.uk], suicidal women [bbc.co.uk] or for a fucking cat [theregister.co.uk].

    Are there pink unicorns where you live or are you just an apologist cunt?
  • by Tweekster (949766) on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @01:25PM (#15737910)
    Never being able to be a juror? where is the downside...
    I have never ever known anyone to say "hey, I would like to be on a jury"

    The FBI file isnt a big deal, hell my grandmother has an FBI file. Those archives have become so large and lacking any sort of detail they are pretty much useless. "hmm your file says you were born here, you got into trouble here, the rest of the post it note we have on you is a doodle of a house..not sure about the relevance there."

    being arrested for a felony should cause a second look when getting top clearance, Why the hell were you arrested in the first place, what was going on that you were a suspect. Those are valid questions when attempting to get a high level of clearance.
  • Re:Except that (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @01:32PM (#15737976)
    Because those kind of wide-ranging orders can't be imposed as an ASBO condition.

    Please read carefully.

    This article is not about ASBOS. It is about Serious Crime Prevention Orders. These are only now being proposed. They do not yet exist. Therefore nobody has yet been affected by them. The proposals are (understandably) causing a great deal of concern. However, since you didn't even understand that we are discussing those proposals, let alone know anything about them, you have nothing to contribute at present.

    Any questions?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, 2006 @05:07PM (#15739615)
    This is just a straight lie. There are numerous instances of ASBOS being applied to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty. About 1 in 3 asbos applied to persons under 17 fall into this category.

    We are now criminalising children with mental health problems and learning disabilities such as tourettes, autism and aspergers syndrome. I recall one autistic child served with an ASBO for 'constantly staring over the neighbours fence'. What is happening is that people like 91degrees are too lazy or incompetent to check the situation, and don't care about the sacrifice of principles of justice so long as the police are only coming for the most vulnerable in society. If he falls foul of the current police state he will receive a rude awakening.

    There are numerous sites which raise these issues and provide references - here is one example: http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/ [asboconcern.org.uk]

     

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...