Email Bomber Faces Retrial 106
An anonymous reader writes "A UK teenager who was cleared last year of launching a denial-of-service attack now faces a retrial. Judges have ruled that crashing a server with five million emails probably isn't permitted under the law. With NASA hacker Gary McKinnon vowing to fight on after losing his extradition fight yesterday, it's been a busy few days for the UK courts."
What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:1)
Re:What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:2)
Ah. Chinese spam. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:2)
What's from China is Ralsky and his slimeball buddies (there was a pretty decent DNA match, so they must be slimeballs) connect from the US and blast everyone from there. If China wants to isolate its people from the real world, let's cut the cables going in and let Ralsky et alia find another swimming pool to p-ss in.
Stopping Chinese Spam (Score:2)
Re:Stopping Chinese Spam (Score:2)
Re:Stopping Chinese Spam (Score:2)
Re:What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:1)
Re:What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:2)
Re:What is british spam like, anyway? (Score:1)
Re:Uh huh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uh huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh huh (Score:1)
From a European perspective, I'd have said "insane pseudo-libertarianism".
Re:Uh huh (Score:1)
nothing to do (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I'm sure they had nothing to do before these guys came along.
Re:nothing to do (Score:2, Funny)
named for being 18 (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the general principle under which juvinile records are sealed is to protect someone from being punished for life for a childhood mistake.
Re:named for being 18 (Score:2)
Re:named for being 18 (Score:1)
Re:named for being 18 (Score:2)
I suppose that the UK is like what I heard (possibly incorrectly) about Canada, in that Minors have legal privacy protection from the press, and that the naming of the defendant in this case was not a restriction upon the court, but rather a restriction on the press (being that a Reporter could easily enough find out the name of an underage defendant, but it would be criminal for him to Publish it)
Re:named for being 18 (Score:4, Informative)
Juviniles enjoy enourmous privilage under the law. They are effectively exempt from all but the most grevious of crimes. They will often literally have to kill one, possibly two people before they are given a serious sentance. Even then, the killings will have to be in cold blood, not in a fracas or the like, and the victims will probably have to be "innocents" of some kind rather than society's persona non grata.
To answer you question, if he were put on trial as a juvinile, he may have stood trial, and might even be convicted, but his sentance would be extremely lienient. It's probable he would have faced a small fine and perhaps a week or two of community service, if that.
However, having been visited by the wonderous Majority Fairy at the stroke of midnight on his 18th birthday, his juvinile privilages, exemptions, and get out of jail free cards have been revoked along with, presumably; his sexual innocence, mental incompetance and intolerance for alcohol. He is now fair game for the full weight of the law to be set on his shoulders as an example to all. A five year sentance is not out of the question, a step up from five weeks visting old folks homes to be sure.
Re:named for being 18 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:named for being 18 (Score:1)
Re:named for being 18 (Score:2)
Personally, I don't know for sure what the minimum age should be, but I can wholeheartedly say that the age of sexual consent, voting age, drafting age, driving age, drinking age, smoking age, and age at which you can be tried as an adult should ALL be the same value.
Re:named for being 18 (Score:2)
Double Jeopardy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
Such stuff happens infrequently, but is sometimes reported on the news.
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:2)
They aren't retroactively convicting anyone: it's an ongoing case. The judge said the defendant had "nothing to answer for", and the CPS disagreed (as have the Court of Appeal).
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:2)
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:2)
And, that protocol has not been ratified by the UK.
I'll take Brussels for $200 any day! (Score:2)
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:2)
It appears that the original defence was that there was no case to answer, because a mailerserver implicitly authorises mail to be sent. No case to answer => no trial and no verdict. The Crown Prosecution Service appealed that ruling, a ruling made in a magistrate's court (ie with an essentially amateur judge) and t
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:2)
Even so, in criminal matters, the ability of an appeals court to refer a case back to a lower court is VERY restricted - generally it would apply to misapplications of the law where the appeals court decides to direct the lower court rather than make a full judgement itself.
In any case,
Re:Queue the oppologists (Score:1)
Re:Queue the oppologists (Score:1)
Re:Queue the oppologists (Score:1, Funny)
From a spammer (Score:2, Funny)
To comment anonymously... (Score:1)
Re:To comment anonymously... (Score:2)
BE scared really scared. (Score:2)
"Judge Grant had said that Section 3 of the Act, which concerns unauthorised modification of data, had not been breached, as emails sent to a server configured to receive emails could not be classified as unauthorised.
But on Thursday, judges at the Royal Courts of Justice sent the case back to the Magistrates Court, saying Judge Grant "was not right to state there was no case to answer". Mr Justice Jack said
"...it's been a busy few days for the UK courts." (Score:2)
Re:"...it's been a busy few days for the UK courts (Score:2)
Perhaps. But there's a good joke about civil servants in there somewhere...
iqu
Time to address "the little dish" (Score:1, Offtopic)
Patella - the kneecap - means "little dish" - can you guess where I'm going with this?
I'm guessing security at the gates won't let any of us in the US carry a baseball bat with us on board.
Would one of you Britons be willing to give us a quick tour of the troublemakers' homes? (ala "Tour of Hollywood Stars' Homes)
Oh, and how much would you charge us to bring a cricket bat along as well as idle the engine when we reach each house?
If it worked in skating, I have a suspicion it might be effective in
Re:Time to address "the little dish" (Score:1)
Punishment for a script kiddie (Score:2)
Just remember, every one of those spammers was an obnoxious script kiddie at some point. And the difference between "obnoxious" and "destructive" is only one of scale.
Really.... (Score:1)
Re:Really.... (Score:2)
Are you sure? (Score:1)
The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:1, Flamebait)
The hell I do. The civil and criminal systems exist for different purposes and have differing standards of proof.
After probably having killed their mother, OJ still has custody of their kids... now that's fucked up.
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:5, Informative)
"They" don't. The criminal case is "the state" or "the people" against the defendant. The civil case is "the families of ron goldman and nicole simpson" against the defendant. Those families didn't get to decide whether the case was prosecuted criminally. They can't force the state to seek restitution for them. Instead, they have to seek it for themselves.
What "different purpose" does that serve?
It serves to compensate people for a loss that another person has caused to them. The criminal case serves the public's desire for retribution against someone who has violated our rules.
If someone steals your car and wrecks it, they can be prosecuted by the state, regardless of whether you want them to be. Either way, you still have the right to sue them for the financial loss they have caused.
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:2)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:1)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:2)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:1)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:2)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The good thing about extradition to the US... (Score:2)
What if? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was working on a new cron tab the other day. It had been one of those 20-hour days, so I was already well-past "bobo mode" when I started. After a half an hour, I began to wonder where the hell all my confirmation emails were going....(er duh).
I wasn't "spamming", I was setting up on a new server and tired. Luckily, the default sendto was a null addy, but *what if*? What if one day I accidentally run a cron tab, and mail bomb the shit out of some poor shmoe?
Don't get me wrong: if I *did* ever do something so stupid, I would expect a civil lawsuit, and I would expect to lose. But is this really a criminal offense?
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Re:What if? (Score:3)
> then you were negligent and it indeed can be a criminal offense.
Only if the prosecution can show intent or criminal recklessness.
> As always the punishment should fit the crime, so a few hundred
> error messages (assuming high volume) that don't cost anyone
> probably wouldn't result in jail time.
The mistake postulated by the OP would not be a crime no matter how many messages were sent. No intent.
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Because it didn't fall from the rack and injure anybody.
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Re:What if? (Score:2)
Re:What if? (Score:2)
what the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
man that is scary, i mean across the pond we have some seriously scary laws (esp since the patriot act) but if any case could just be re-tried because the gov thought maybe they were wrong i'd be terrified.
Re:what the hell (Score:2)
Re:what the hell (Score:2, Informative)
It's not a case of a re-trial purely because the government think they're wrong. They appealed and a higher court looked at the case and said "Yup, you may have a point there", and sent it back to the lower court for re-trial. That same higher court could just have easily have said "Nope, they interpreted the law correctly, case closed.".
Re:what the hell (Score:1)
Re:what the hell (Score:3, Interesting)
They can appeal against a poor reading of the law in the lower court. I don't it find it particularly scary that someone who is incorrectly acquitted on technical grounds can face a retrial, if a higher court so orders.
slashdot effect? (Score:1)
is slashdot liable?
is the poster liable?
Are the people who visit the link liable?
Mental Note: must post mirror links in articles to avoid liabilities