UK Hackers Face Antisocial Behaviour Orders 444
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."
Unbelieveable (Score:5, Insightful)
Power lies in its users hands (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Potential? This law would criminalize the act of being suspected in a crime. There is no grey line being responsible use an abuse.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Being arrested will get you your very own FBI file.
Being arrested for a felony will cause tons of problems if you decide to try and get secret or top secret clearance down the line.
Seizures of "drug money" (cars, houses, etc) without trial are an everyday occurence.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, so there's an upside!
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Informative)
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 sec
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me an idealist, but if you're found innocent of a crime, that should be about it. Now yeah, the person may have covered it up well, but you're being subject to double jeopardy. I certainly understand concerns, but being arrested because my NAME is the
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for you. Now you just need to move to a place where people are found innocent of crimes and you'll be all set. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US justice system does not decide innocence, it decides guilt. Being found "not guilty" just means is that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but if you are on the other side of things, you might care. If you are from some segment of society that is disproportionately likely to be arrested unfairly -- say because of your race [aclu.org] or political activity [washingtonpost.com] -- that means that a jury is less likely to include people like you.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:4, Insightful)
There is the potential for abuse, but the general public seems fairly oblivious to this.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:4, Insightful)
If police and judges are not abiding by the rules of society, why do they expect criminals to?
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:4, Insightful)
They do the same thing in the US with drug cases. They can seize all kinds of property merely be saying it might have drugs on/in it. They can bypass due process. It has been that way since the 80s. It is the reason I have no respect for the US government.
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:2, Interesting)
You expect RESTRAINT from judges?
I for one welcome our new totalitarian legal dictator overlords...
Oh wait, they aren't new... *%^^*%$&^%$!!!
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:2)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:2)
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Rights are things which are granted as inherent to your existance as a human being. Laws are put in to place to determine those things which one cannot do, or to dictate the process of a particular action from beginning to completion.
Laws exist that say that he cannot blow you up - murder is a crime. The law states that he cannot blow you up. However, there exists no law on record that grants you any ri
Re:Power lies in its users hands (Score:2)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sure sounds like we have the right to not be blown up to me.
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:3, Insightful)
But hell over
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:2)
Not anymore [hutchnews.com]...
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:3, Insightful)
To be perfectly blunt, people care differently about "those people" being opressed than when it begins happening to their own.
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:2)
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, your government had internment without trial [wikipedia.org] for a number of years and they suspend the use of jury trials when they feel like it. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps if you are comparing this to crimes where people get sent to jail, yes. But nobody is going to jail here, the comparison isn't appropriate. For instance, you don't have to get somebody convicted to get a restraining order against them either, but nobody complains about their civil rights being infringed there, do they? Think of ASBOs as restraining orders on behalf of the community. They aren't great, but they aren't the catastrophe you immediately assume.
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:5, Insightful)
The siezure of private property and imposing of arbitrary restrictions (that will lead to jail if violated) is not a catastrophe?
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unbelieveable (Score:4, Insightful)
"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order" (Score:2)
ASBOs are essentially the same as a restraining order. Restraining orders can be placed on people who haven't been convicted, either. Almost identical burden of proof, too.
Only if the terms of the restraining order (or ASBO) have been breached, does anyone go to jail.
Tomayto, tomato. It's just British English for "restraining order" with a few bits of neighbourhood stuff thrown in.
Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order" (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true of ASBOs, but these proposals go a long way beyond that. From TFA, they want to have the power to confiscate property (including people's homes and businesses), wide-ranging powers to acquire and analyse data from both private and public databases, and even limit the amount of cash one is allowed to carry while preventing one from using anything other than "approved" credit cards or bank accounts - and all of this is "where the police do not have enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecu
Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order" (Score:3, Informative)
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 men
Re:Unbelieveable - step 2 (Score:2)
not in the USA :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US.
Still think all the geeks of the world need to unite and form a new country with fat pipes and takeout resteraunts every half mile.
-nB
Re:not in the USA :-) (Score:2)
Re:not in the USA :-) (Score:4, Funny)
Not a good idea, penguins ain't as fluffy as tux (Score:4, Funny)
If the meanest biggest land predator can't survive against a penguin change do you stand?
Re:not in the USA :-) (Score:2)
Not that our (UK) laws aren't just as crazy (some less so; some more so) than yours, but when was the last time your government took any notice of that antiquated document which I think they've made clear they don't think applies to this 21st century cyber world, which, if you believe Bush, is full of "un-American" "hackers" [sic] and "terrorists" [sic] out to do unspecified really Bad Stuff? In fact, I think many recent presidents have made breaking the constitution their top challenge in office (as, I wou
Re:not in the USA :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
1) a competent medical/psychiatric professional declares someone to have a mental ilness;
2) that person be judged by competent professionals to be a danger to themself or others.
This is for the long term. A police officer may temporarily detain someone to determine their mental health and their danger, but if a mental health professional says they are mentally stable OR not a threat to themself or others, then
For the British-impaired (Score:4, Informative)
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Your proposel has been heard ... (Score:4, Informative)
Thank you for your input.
Tough call... (Score:3, Insightful)
The part about banning thmem from computers even if not convicted is just nuts. However, as with gun crimes, convicted felons can't legally buy/use guns. That makes sense because there is no real need to use one in the first place. However, computers are a different challenge... they are somewhat necessary in todays society, especially if that's your career field. How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer? This will only get more interesting as time passes.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Tough call... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ask Kevin Mitnick.
Re:Tough call... (Score:2)
Re:Tough call... (Score:2)
...but obviously that is a computer crime as phone lines are digital now (and routed through computers). By lying he was misusing the phone company's computers and unlawfully trespassing on those computers with lies!
Hopefully those computers were made in somewhere were they don't have the rule of law so he can be extradited to that country (that the victim computers were nationals of) and punished severely...oh wait...he was already in the US anyway...never mind.
He also endangered national security, cr
Re:Tough call... (Score:2)
In that case we'd better let the military know. Think of how much they could save in the budget if they didn't have to buy all those guns. Also, all police departments should destroy their weapons, as there is no real need to have them in the first place.
Re:Tough call... (Score:2, Insightful)
For general purpose purpose computers, they are not necessary for a person private life.. They are only need for work, and many jobs don't require computers.
The same way you tell a cab driver or truck driver that their license is being revoked. "Looks like you need a new career."
It does not matter if one is a doctor, lawyer, banker
Re:Tough call... (Score:2)
Or a car... even in carbureted cars, the carburetor is technically a mechanical analog computer.
-b.
Re:Tough call... (Score:3, Funny)
"I got 5 years for violating my ASBO"
"Oh, whadya do?"
"The wankers caught me with an abacus"
Re:Tough call... (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are the key phrases that tell you this is a HORRIBLE IDEA:
1) "give the police and the courts sweeping new powers"
2) "impose the orders on individuals, even if they had not been convicted"
3) "proposals, if enforced, would give the police and courts "extensive powers" against --*suspected*-- hackers and spammers" (em by me)
4) "give the courts almost unlimited powers"
5) "the courts would have almost unlimited discretion to impose the order"
6) "Those suspected
See all the uses of "sweeping" and "extensive" combined with power? Never a good thing.
However, there is a glimmer of hope:
"In the US, this legislation would not be constitutional," said Starnes.
"If the Home Office can show it can use these powers in a reasonable and prudent manner, then I'm in favour," Starnes added.
---Yeah, that will obviously happen, when are they not reasonable and prudent??
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll give you an example, the village I grew up in got a new set of slides and swings in the park. Within a week the place was full of graffiti ("LOL COCK" type of things) and most the new equipment was trashed. No kids went there because you'd always find 15-20 year olds drunk and doing drugs. These would be the sort of people who get an Asbo, they're told to stay the hell out of the park and if they go into them they will have commited a crime.
Plus lets me honest here, the UK police force right now has bigger issues. They shot a guy in the head 8 times for "being a terrorist", when he was totally innocent and now they're getting done on Healthy and safety instead of murder charges they deserve. I'd say forget Asbos and start to worry about the big shit they are throwing around right now. I think I'd rather lose my PC in this country than get 8 holes in the head..
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
First, they came for the complete assholes. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a complete asshole.
then, they came for the dickheads. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a dickhead.
then, they came for the dingbats. I did not speak out, for I wasn't a dingbat.
then, they came for the schmucks. Who will speak out for me?
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is lots of graffiti in the park... do they put a camera in the park and get real evidence of vandalism? Increase partrols and catch someone in the act?
No! Instead, without a trial or any evidence, they deny law abiding citizens the right to use the public services that they pay for.
"But, you don't understand... these were DRUNKS!!! Well we didn't give them blood tests and charge them with public intoxication... we don't have too, we know they were scum! SCUM! They were wearing old clothes like they were poor or something, they were laughing and smiling, AND SOME WERE NOT EVEN WHITE!!! We sure showed those dirty scummy people not to come around our neighborhood!"
This is old fashion "run the gypsies out of town" style vigilante justice, wrapped in politically correct government-technocratic rhetoric.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
The ASBO legislation is hideous, seemingly designed to be a catch-all method for criminalisation of any given behaviour. e.g. wearing a particular type of hat/clothing, using any language more explicit than 'darn', etc. The original idea had some merit but, as ever with Blair's government, it was perverted into a tool to criminalise the wrong sort of people;
I have a fundamental problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a fundamental problem with this:
So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
The irony is that most people actually seem to think ASBOs are a good thing.
Rich.
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
I had no idea he had such power. You should really look into changing that.
Or....maybe that was just a dig on Blair when he had nothing to do with it, and it was all FUD?
I think I like that second option.
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
You've never heard of phrases like "Thatcher's Britain", "Reaganomics", etc. which refer to a political or economic movement whose figurehead was a particular person, but that particular person was not wholly responsible for every single detail?
Sad.
Rich.
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
Yeah, too bad they gave up all their guns. (Well, everyone except the criminals, that is.) Kind of hard to rise up now, isn't it?
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
Re:I have a fundamental problem... (Score:2)
No. Britain had the death penalty for 'High Treason' (a small subset of treason, mainly crimes against the royal family) until a little under a decade ago. One of the conditions of signing the European Convention on Human Rights was the abolition of the death penalty, and so it went then.
WTF!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this say something about humans as a whole? Are we that afraid of someone hurting us that we want to impact the basic freedoms of people who have been proven guilty of no crime!?
Feeling guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (Score:2)
You're just begging for an ABSO, aren't you?
Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (Score:2)
IANAL, on either side of the Pond. And apparently I'm no damn good at remembering NTLAs FTFA*.
*Non-Three-Letter Acronyms From The Fine Article
Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (Score:2)
I don't really think voting out the labour party will have any effect, as it s
Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (Score:2)
You sat by and let your government introduce internment without trial [wikipedia.org]
You let your government suspend the use of jury trials when they feel like it. [wikipedia.org]
You let your government has post video cameras on every corner and said nothing when they staffed them with perverts.
Your government lets the police get away with murder even when they e
It's a bit late now (Score:4, Insightful)
So long, due process... (Score:2)
we hardly knew ye.
Antisocial Personality Disorder (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Antisocial Personality Disorder (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell - this could be used to describe just about any corporation. It could easily be applied to describe the United States government. Quite a few politicians would also fit this definition.
In short, when major elements of society act in a way to "get ahead", then punish others for doing the same, it is nothing more than hypocrisy (stemming from a need for self-preservation and greed, mos
Just a first step... (Score:2)
Remember the article yesterday about not needing anything other than an internet connection to have everything delivered and work at home? But anyone with that kind of life style is being targetted by this. You don't have to be guilty; you just have to be accused and it would ruin your life if you actually followed their rules. That's like saying the government
They expect this to work?? (Score:2, Insightful)
How long before... (Score:2)
...downloading porn is considered anti-social behavior? Or complaining about the President or Prime Minister? Hate to use the overworn "slippery slope" phraseology, but once you open Pandora's box, it's awfully hard to close. Sure, some of these people, convicted or not, should probably have Internet/computer access rights revoked. But how enforceable is it really? If someone's convicted and goes to jail, fine, but what about someone who is only suspected? Are they going to then follow them around and make
It's stunning (Score:2, Insightful)
let's turn ourselves in. (Score:2)
when they realize that "hackers" are what make all their doodads work, they'll come crying back to us for help.
then we can secede from the rest of society and parcel out our own bit of land where we get all the fat pipes we want!
It's becoming hard not to be a criminal (Score:2)
IP (Score:2, Insightful)
is a ddos a serious crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
if a ddos attack is a serious crime, is using a computer with known remote security exploits 'acting in a way'?
random samples of Orwellian gobbldygook (Score:3, Insightful)
"a person
"would be liable where his conduct has the capacity to provide
"we also need to ensure that those
"The decision as to what level of belief should be required for this offence will need to be carefully thought through."
"the powers provided by the
Something very similar in the USA (Score:3, Interesting)
We have the same thing here in the USA but it goes by different names. The most obvious is a Restraining Order.
Not identical but very similar to an ASBO, Judges impose the same restrictions as ASBOs all the time in Juvenile Courts with what they call delayed charges. It's akin to blackmail. The way they work here is if the DA figures he has evidence to charge someone with a crime, he can delay making those charges if X, Y or Z conditions are met.
I've seen a Juvenile Court Judge delay a theft charge so long as the Juvenile didn't associate with several of his friends, didn't go to a certain home, was home by 10pm, etc. The charges would be delayed and dropped if the Juvenile obeyed the conditions. If not, the charges would be made and the Juvenile would have to answer for them.
The difference is in order to get to the point of having ASBO type of conditions placed upon you, there needs to be enough evidence of a crime that would allow a DA to hold the charges over your head. Some say that's a big difference, and others call it a fine line.
That's our protection, I suppose, that the State has to jump through a few more hoops to get the equivalent of an ASBO here in the USA but they do happen. And, at least in Juvenile Court they happen all the time.
Re:And in the US.... (Score:2)
It'd be thrown out of court.
Next!
You mean NOWHERE in the US (Score:2)
Please list some examples of court proceedings in the US that follow the template being described in the UK. Cite examples of US citizens that, only under suspicion of some "cyber" crime, have been subjected to a court order denying them use of their computer as punishment. For that matter, please detail the nature of the courts that are operated by DHS and which have such confiscatory influence over criminal suspects.
*crickets chirping*
Re:banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD? (Score:2)
Instead you will be sleeping in an alley and begging for spare change.
Hah, not even that good... (Score:2)
Re:To my U.K. Bretheren... (Score:2)
If it's true, then do what the person you're praising did not do, and provide some actual examples of what he's claiming. For example: in one post, he's managing to say that disagreeing with the executive branch of the government carries some dire consequences... and yet, here is doing exactly that. Well, which is it? If you agree that people in the US can't vo
Re:Refugees (Score:2)
Re:A few points (Score:3, Insightful)
For hundreds of years now, Englishmen have had a defined set of things which were forbidden, and a defined set of penalties, together with defined procedures for proving violations. Now all of a sudden in the last 6 or 7 years, none of this seems fit for purpose. All of a sudden we have to give enormous discretionary powers to all kin