http://msn.com.com/2100-1105-965750.html
Printable View
Yeah, but that's not new, they used to hunt and burn alive hackers couple hundred years ago too... oh wait, those where witches not hackers! ;)
Jokes aside, this is the interesting part of the article:
It doesn't sound that bad if the "for computer intrusions that "recklessly" put others' lives at risk" is respected.Quote:
What CSEA does
If approved by the Senate and signed by the president, who has called for a Department of Homeland Security, the law would:
• Promise up to life terms for computer intrusions that "recklessly" put others' lives at risk. A committee report accompanying the legislation predicts: "A terrorist or criminal cyberattack could further harm our economy and critical infrastructure. It is imperative that the penalties and law enforcement capabilities are adequate to prevent and deter such attacks."
• Permit limited surveillance without a court order when there is an "ongoing attack" on an Internet-connected computer or "an immediate threat to a national security interest." That kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information--not the contents of online communications or telephone calls. Under federal law, such taps can take place when there's a threat of "serious bodily injury to any person" or activity involving organized crime.
• Change current law, which says it's illegal for an Internet provider to "knowingly divulge" what users do except in some specific circumstances, such as when it's troubleshooting glitches, receiving a court order or tipping off police that a crime is in progress. CSEA expands that list to include when "an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay."
• Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
Ammo
I imagine it takes a pretty good hacker to break in to your computer and recklessly put your life at risk.Is there some new Java script that makes your computer blow up in your face?I think the government needs to clarify that a little bit.There's no real way to intrude into somebody's computer and put there life directly at risk,so they need to specify some examples of what they're talking about.I think Congress has a severly over-exagerated view of what can be done from a PC.They make it sound as if you can just telnet through the ports of the national nuclear defense system and start launching at will.What they obviously don't realize is that things are a little more complicated than that.They need to stop using advisors from large corporations that would love to see "hackers" done away for good,so they can stop worrying about securing their software,and be forced to learn something themselves.
guys this is allready being discussed in http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=236847 , care to continue there?
btw, gghornet, i posted an example of when crackers endanger human lives there too ;)
A portion of the 11/12/2002 version of CSEA does provide for life imprisonment:
"`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'."
Life imprisonment is a possibility where someone knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death.
Only way I can see someone's life at risk would be changing their CC information (or stealing it) and/or submitting their location or anything into a chatroom or on a message board. Other than that, the person's life isn't at risk IMHO, just the computer.
ok, what if the cracker would make a computer at a power facility go down that would cause the facility to shut down, there is a blackout and someone tripps down the stairs in his building and get a concusion?
Something I don't understand is, how come a hitman that gets arrested in a sting (in which the hitman is endangering the life of another) only gets a few years in prison while a malicious hacker gets LIFE! Life, for the rest of your life you are stuck behind bars...
I'm not advocating that hackers that do the wrong thing should not do time... but IMO I think life is a little much. But then again for some it is a life style... hmmm...
By the way, has anyone heard of any hackers that have gotten life in prison yet? Just curious as to how the court justifies the "endangering ones life" part...
--Peace :cool:
In line with Mephisto, what is someone were to make a number of traffic lights go out. Due to the malfunctioning lights, many serious traffic accidents happened and many people were killed ? :eek:
I won't go into what if someone were to disable a portion of tha air-traffic control system..... :(