PDA

View Full Version : Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act


barbarian
09-25-2001, 03:56 PM
I would totally support this bill

_______________________________


Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act
Justice Department proposal classifies most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
By Kevin Poulsen
Sep 23 2001 11:00PM PT

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.

The Justice Department is urging Congress to quickly approve its Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a twenty-five page proposal that would expand the government's legal powers to conduct electronic surveillance, access business records, and detain suspected terrorists.

The proposal defines a list of "Federal terrorism offenses" that are subject to special treatment under law. The offenses include assassination of public officials, violence at international airports, some bombings and homicides, and politically-motivated manslaughter or torture.

Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a computer are included in the definition of terrorism.

To date no terrorists are known to have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But several recent hacker cases would have qualified as "Federal terrorism offenses" under the Justice Department proposal, including the conviction of Patrick Gregory, a prolific web site defacer who called himself "MostHateD"; Kevin Mitnick, who plead guilty to penetrating corporate networks and downloading proprietary software; Jonathan "Gatsby" Bosanac, who received 18-months in custody for cracking telephone company computers; and Eric Burns, the Shoreline, Washington hacker who scrawled "Crystal, I love you" on a United States Information Agency web site in 1999. The 19-year-old was reportedly trying to impress a classmate with whom he was infatuated.

The Justice Department submitted the ATA to Congress late last week as a response to the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that killed some 7,000 people.

As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today -- and the maximum prison term for a single conviction would be upped to life imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal justice system

Those convicted of providing "advice or assistance" to cyber crooks, or harboring or concealing a computer intruder, would face the same legal repercussions as an intruder. Computer intrusion would also become a predicate offense for the RICO statutes.

DNA samples would be collected from hackers upon conviction, and retroactively from those currently in custody or under federal supervision. The samples would go into the federal database that currently catalogs murderers and kidnappers.

Civil liberties groups have criticized the ATA for its dramatic expansion of surveillance authority, and other law enforcement powers.

But Attorney General John Ashcroft urged swift adoption of the measure Monday.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the proposal's definition of terrorism. "I don't believe that our definition of terrorism is so broad," said Ashcroft. "It is broad enough to include things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."

The Act is scheduled for mark-up by the committee Tuesday morning.
_________________

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257

dank
09-25-2001, 04:24 PM
Those convicted of providing "advice or assistance" to cyber crooks, or harboring or concealing a computer intruder
How would the real perpetrators be differentiated from those who's computers are being used unknowingly to launch the attacks, such as DOS? Does assistance have to be intentional?

Dan

Bruce
09-25-2001, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by barbarian:
I would totally support this bill Do you realize, that by some definitions of the term "hacker", I would fit the bill? Not to mention many legitimate computer security researchers who are doing their best to advance the state of computer security across the 'net?

Never mind that this doesn't address the real problems of computer security, which starts with shoddy products and ends with consumer or administrator ignorance. Networked software security, at a technical level, is essentially very simple: the software receives bytes, processes bytes, and transmits bytes. The software determines exactly how it handles each and every byte that it receives.

Arthur
09-25-2001, 04:46 PM
Bruce is right, "hacker" has several meanings.

Webster's dictionary says;
Main Entry: hackĀ·er
Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Everybody here is a computer hacker, either by definition 3 or definition 2 ;)

PaulKroll
09-25-2001, 04:56 PM
I would totally support this bill
Why? So it would stop people from killing? Excuse me?

Someone defaces yahoo, and they go to jail for life?

If someone attacks a site and get the credit card data, they're thieves: charge them as such.

If someone attacks a site and puts a juvenile "we rule!" message up to replace the home page, they're vandals: charge them as such.

If someone attacks a site with no clear intention, then by default they've ALREADY BROKEN LAWS about breaking into computers, and they can be charged under those.

Applying "Terrorism!" to any law that would otherwise have a very, very difficult time passing, is only going to remove freedoms, cause substantial grief, and not stop one single actual terrorist.

This is almost as bad as the encryption backdoors that are proposed. Like a terrorist is going to "upgrade" to the backdoor-enabled software...

The FBI has to fight monsters, but that doesn't mean they're Pure Good. They're people, and their view of the world is very specifically warped because of what they do for a living.

Terra
09-25-2001, 05:09 PM
Arthur:

I think we need a QT behind bars, because that is where the FutureQuest engineers (me included) would be found...

Barbarian:

In short, if I do my job properly (testing and probing network connections) then I could face life in prison... My skills would be replaced with a harmonica... Do not believe just because it is written sternly that they may not one day choose to enforce it fully... The sheer fact that it is written at all give government the ability to warp it to their own needs...

I truly feel sorry for the sheep^H^H^H^H^H people that are duped by this insidious piece of federal legislation...

--
Terra
--But then again - all sheep look alike to me for I am a wolf--
FutureQuest

<TAG: Post==Troll>

ryount
09-25-2001, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by barbarian:

As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today -- and the maximum prison term for a single conviction would be upped to life imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal justice system


Can they do this? I know the Constitution says that they can't later make something a crime that wasn't before (Ex post facto). But can they retroactively abolish a statute of limitations?

Arthur
09-26-2001, 03:39 AM
QT behind bars Ready while you wait... http://leonbergerdatabase.com/vbicons/QTbars.gif

Marbledog
09-26-2001, 09:48 AM
It wasn't too long ago that we were reading a story about a fellow on trial for discovering a security leak in a news site, reporting it to the owner, and then getting arrested by the FBI. The general tenor of that conversation was that the FBI's behavior was appalling. Now this bill might justify that appalling behavior.

My fear in all of this probably necessary rewriting of laws that affect our freedoms and privacy is that we're going to destroy freedom by trying to protect it. Scary stuff.

Matt
09-26-2001, 01:38 PM
Glad to see such level-headed responses :) My guess is that someone realized how vulnerable our computer systems are and thought that pre-emptive legislation would halt any possible future "terrorist" strikes on our computer networks. This does not solve the underlying problem of unsecured servers/ networks, rather it criminalizes exploitation of such systems and lumps such exploitations under the category of terrorist activity (scary). This is especially scary because activity that is perfectly legal now could suddenly fall under the category of "terrorism."

Such legislation would have the reverse effect of its intended goal. Criminalizing exploits of such systems doesn't stop them from occurring, it simply leads to laziness in implementing effective security mechanisms (and a lack of good information in assessing the effectiveness of a security solution). So, while this may have an effect on the activities of your average hacker (which is a very vague term), does anyone honestly believe that it will have an effect on terrorist attempts or that it will make things harder (rather than easier) to carry out?

We cannot indiscriminently punish a very broad range of activities as PaulKroll points out. Hopefully barbarian will come to his/ her senses and so will all the other "barbarian's" out there.

-Matt