Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The ACLU is busy with real rights violations (Score 1) 224

by CanHasDIY (#48229005) Attached to: CHP Officers Steal, Forward Nude Pictures From Arrestee Smartphones

Like the time the ACLU fought for the KKK's right to protest on the courthouse steps? Or rather, are you making a snap judgement based on a preconceived notion you got not from your own research into the organization, but from some media outlet?

My guess, the latter.

Comment: Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 164

by CanHasDIY (#48216651) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

Oh right, because your government has laws that remove a person's right to speech if said government deems said speech to have some vaguely negative effect on something, somewhere. So basically the only information the public recieves regarding ongoing issues is the nicely scrubbed, sanitized version approved by TPTB.

I prefer our way, thanks. Much better to receive the info and make my own informed judgement. Besides, 'trial by media' is only really an issue because of stupid people who believe everything their favorite echo chamber tells them, so I vote we go for the root cause.

Comment: Re:You're all wrong... (Score 1) 164

by CanHasDIY (#48215127) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.

Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.

"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.

Comment: Re:Don't do the crime (Score 1) 164

by CanHasDIY (#48215097) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."

In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).

Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?

Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?

Comment: Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 164

by CanHasDIY (#48215053) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.

Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.

Comment: Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 164

by CanHasDIY (#48214997) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

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

And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.

True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...