Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act
September 25, 2001 5:14 PM Subscribe
Hackers, virus-writers and web site defacers would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under legislation proposed by the Bush Administration that would classify most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
posted by Postroad at 5:39 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by martz at 5:45 PM on September 25, 2001
Jesus maheebus.
posted by Aikido at 5:57 PM on September 25, 2001
um...remind me again...what critical strategic (or other) function does whitehouse.gov serve again?
posted by rushmc at 6:06 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by websavvy at 6:14 PM on September 25, 2001
Hash: SHA1
Worse yet, I don't think this is going to be the end of what is being planned in the name of safety. How is hacking websites and releasing viruses related to the attacks on the WTC?
Anyone?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
iQA/AwUBO7Et6np5UOPof1apEQIFjACcCq9gF3ludB2rdZScBw6yV31vYLIAn3rK
7qDIQjz+dqVSvKmfseCcSG/G
=YY6a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
posted by mathowie at 6:18 PM on September 25, 2001
I would like you to know that, if you choose to deface MeFi in such a manner, you will be sent to jail... forever. Choose wisely.
posted by whatnotever at 6:26 PM on September 25, 2001
Seriously, if this DOES apply to website-defacing, I'd like to know, because I'm trying to write to my congressperson and I'd like to not sound stupid.
posted by xeney at 6:40 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by Zool at 6:48 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by jcterminal at 6:49 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by omen68x at 6:49 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by wackybrit at 6:53 PM on September 25, 2001
True in more ways than one....
Did anyone else read it "HOOKERS face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act?"
posted by rushmc at 6:56 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by hug99 at 7:10 PM on September 25, 2001
Life imprisonment for hacking a website? Shouldn't that just be called vandalism. Now life imprisonment for spammers, that would be good.
posted by bobo123 at 7:14 PM on September 25, 2001
2. Bush Administration states that the US will not necessarily reveal the evidence against 'terrorists' they uncover.
3. Bush Administration announces that the US expects all other governments to comply and assist with American anti-terrorist actions or be branded as terrorist sympathizers themselves (and therefore subject to attack).
4.. Bush Administration proposes legislation to Congress to make hacking (and assisting hacking) and other relatively minor non-violent criminal acts = 'terrorism' subject to life imprisonment, etc.
I know that the intelligence and law enforcement communities are taking this opportunity to get all their pet proposals passed into law during this time of national distraction and 'anti-terrorist' paranoia, but I'm beginning to fear a concerted and irrevocable attack on civil liberties by Ashcroft and his rabid reactionary companions a hell of a lot more the possibility of another attack by Osama and his buddies.
posted by SenshiNeko at 7:24 PM on September 25, 2001
time for a new war.
thanks for feeding off of fear mr. bush.
anyone here still think he's a "good leader"?
posted by jcterminal at 7:39 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by untuckedshirts at 7:41 PM on September 25, 2001
is the retroactive bit for real? you can do that?
posted by sad_otter at 7:45 PM on September 25, 2001
No, you can't.
Note that this is Kevin Poulsen writing this article, someone who is about as far from an unbiased source as you can get when it comes to the subject of government vs. hackers. I would take this story with a few dozen grains of salt.
posted by aaron at 8:32 PM on September 25, 2001
The communist registration acts were the rage 50 years ago this week. See the Sept. 20th entry on the Internal Security Bill.
Xeney
***disclaimer, I am not a practicing attorney, and the following is only legal information, and not legal advice :-)***
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1830 might be used to prosecute someone for web site defacement. It depends upon the type of action actually taken, and possibly the amount of damages, if any.
subsection (a)(5)(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
A protected computer is defined as: (e) As used in this section (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications;
(a)(5)(B) or (a)(5)(C) might also be used to prosecute for web site defacement.
For a very good (but NOT definitive) description of how this law might be used, see Hacking Your Way To Hard Time: Application Of Computer Crime Laws To Specific Types Of Hacking Attacks
This is recommended reading for anyone interested in computer crime.
posted by bragadocchio at 8:38 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by benjh at 8:39 PM on September 25, 2001
eff.org has lots of information on the proposed changes, but I don't see anything specifically saying "Deface a website, go to jail" - the Anti-Terrorist Act requires the cracker to be seeking information for the crack to be a crime.
However, I would bet lawyers could argue that anyone gaining unauthorized access to a website had the means to access information, even if that person didn't actually do anything with it.
Regardless, a lot of personal freedom would be lost of ATA passes.
posted by jazon at 8:46 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by pyr at 8:54 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by eatdonuts at 9:15 PM on September 25, 2001
No, you can't.
Oh, yes, you can, if California's experience with retroactively lengthened statutes of limitations is any indication. This state retroactively changed statutes of limitations for child molestation, and the California Supreme Court found that it didn't violate the ex post facto clause. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari, so they don't seem to be very interested in the subject. I bet that part of this would hold up in court.
Bragadocchio: Thanks for the link; that was helpful.
posted by xeney at 9:42 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by louie at 9:52 PM on September 25, 2001
Ah, my mistake. My eyes glazed right over the "statute of limitations" line in his article. I thought they were referring to making certain now-legal activities retroactively illegal. I'm still not at all convinced it would pass muster, though. Child molestation was as heinous an act in 1940 as it is today. But somebody who diddled around with a bit of hacking as a college student in 1985 obviously bears no relation to an adult agent of a foreign government trying to bring down vital government hardware in 2001. Such a law might survive, but only if no federal DA anywhere is ever stupid enough to try to prosecute someone for prior harmless poking around. If they do, they'll probably end up getting the entire statute thrown out.
(Those who John Ashcroft doesn't agree with: 99% of the population.)
ROFL! Dream on.
posted by aaron at 10:05 PM on September 25, 2001
posted by bragadocchio at 10:06 PM on September 25, 2001
With the amount of technical prowess there is in our congress and our law enforcement, they will probably arrest you for not closing an italics tag...
That does deface Mefi, doesn't it??
posted by fooljay at 10:34 PM on September 25, 2001
The ruling flannel is thrashing for more than it needs. This is scary. It reeks. And it really isn't very funny.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:44 PM on September 25, 2001
Exactly.
***Same disclaimer as above - I am not a practicing attorney, and this is legal information - not legal advice***
In the California case, the ex post facto defense might have been appropriate in that case if the law that had changed was the criminal offense itself. What had changed wasn't the criminal offense, but rather the length of time that the state had to bring the charge.
In other words - the criminal act of child molestation was still a criminal act, even though the statute of limitations had run out. California changed the length of time so that a statute of limitations defense could not be used.
An ex post facto defense was attempted to return the statute of limitations defense. The offense of child molestation had not changed, and the punishment for that offense had not changed either. Because the actual crime hadn't changed, the ex post facto defense wasn't allowed.
So, under the proposed Terrorism law, the statute of limitations would be lifted for certain computer crimes, as long as they were crimes at the time of the offense.
However, there might be some question about whether those older offenses could have a longer sentence imposed upon them than what was called for at the time of the offense. A longer sentence for a previously committed offense might just violate the ex post facto clause of the constitution. The remedy a the court for a successful attack under that defense wouldn't be a release from incarceration, but rather probably a resentencing based upon the previous sentencing terms.
The proposed law includes language that talks about A "person convicted of any Federal terrorism offense may be sentenced to imprisonment for any term of years or for life, notwithstanding any maximum term of imprisonment specified in the law describing the offense."
So, under the ex post facto clause - no life sentence for a crime committed before the statute is enacted, if the person being sentenced couldn't have gotten a life sentence for the crime at the time of the offense.
But, under three strikes laws, or other federal sentencing guidelines involving aggravating circumstances, a felony conviction might lead to a longer sentence anyway.
posted by bragadocchio at 10:49 PM on September 25, 2001
An example of an area that worries me: say your boyfriend committed one of these offenses in 1999. He can't be sentenced under the new law, but if you continue to 'harbor' him within the meaning of that part of the law, after the enactment of the statute, can you be prosecuted? I don't know the answer.
posted by xeney at 11:19 PM on September 25, 2001
An example of an area that worries me: say your boyfriend committed one of these offenses in 1999. He can't be sentenced under the new law, but if you continue to 'harbor' him within the meaning of that part of the law, after the enactment of the statute, can you be prosecuted? I don't know the answer.
posted by xeney at 11:19 PM on September 25, 2001
Code Red might be covered by this one:
18 U.S.C. 1830, subsection (a)(5)(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
The legislation isn't aimed against domestic hackers (at this point), but it could be.
Xeney,
Everything in this seems to be a weapon aimed towards terrorists.
Rico = civil forfeiture of assets
Extraterritoriality of haboring a terrorist = jurisdiction over people outside of the united states
These would have to apply retroactively, otherwise they wouldn't have any teeth against Osama & Co.
Changing the hypothetical a little, If I had a girlfriend who was a "terrorist" and I habored her, it would probably be exactly the same legal consequences under the new law as the old law, except I could be guilty of haboring her outside of the United States. I think the focus of this new version of the law is going to be involved with people abroad, at first.
posted by bragadocchio at 4:10 AM on September 26, 2001
After all he has defaced an entire state as it's representative and is well known for his radical fundamentalist beliefs.
Ouch! Those damned jackboots hurt John! Get off my neck you facist Nazi whore!
posted by nofundy at 5:28 AM on September 26, 2001
Anyhoo, going with the flow...
Worse yet, I don't think this is going to be the end of what is being planned in the name of safety. How is hacking websites and releasing viruses related to the attacks on the WTC?
Both are activities not understood by the oligarchy.
As per usual, rather than approaching the problem logically, they have leapt to conclusions based mainly on paranoia.
Remember, they are protecting your freedom to consume. That is the only remaining 'freedom' we are afforded.
Hopefully, this is a more accurate description of world war three than the scenarios being bandied about by the pwargs (pro-war arguments).
Is it not the case, presently, that bringing encryption software into the us from many countries is a 'terrorist' activity?
posted by asok at 8:48 AM on September 26, 2001
« Older | Another interview with bin Laden, with a twist, Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
For example, a peeved customer (or bored kiddie hacker) might go and deface an e-commerce site. In real life, that's the equivalent of throwing eggs at McDonald's windows.. does that make you a terrorist? An idiot, yes.. a terrorist, no.
While I think people who attack governmental Web sites (Pentagon, White House, et al) could be considered terrorists, of sorts, I think this is a bit of an over-reaction if someone goes and defaces MomsCookieShop.com.
posted by wackybrit at 5:34 PM on September 25, 2001