Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Hackers Face Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the we-have-everything-but-the-orders-here dept.

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."

cancel ×

444 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Unbelieveable (5, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736840)

even if they've not been convicted.

Power lies in its users hands (3, Interesting)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736874)

This seems like one of those policies with unlimited potential for abuse. Sometimes such policies work and sometimes they become draconian measures. It all depends on the restraint of those who apply the law. TFA suggests that this law is bound to be abused on a large scale basis to perform an end-run around the established legal system. It will be interesting to see how this is applied and to whom.

Re:Power lies in its users hands (4, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736945)

This seems like one of those policies with unlimited potential for abuse.

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 (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736949)

And there's the problem. ASBOs, while a total infringement of any sort of due pocess seem to have worked reasonably well They're only imposed on people where it's quite obvious that they are behaving anti-socially - This is usually things like vandalism, and harrasment - and at the moment, the people targetted are clearly acting anti-socially. As a result, they're really quite popular.

There is the potential for abuse, but the general public seems fairly oblivious to this.

Re:Power lies in its users hands (3, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737084)

So you're saying the majority if Britain has decided breaking the law (due process, or whatever its called there) is necessary to punish people who... are... breaking the law?

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 (3, Insightful)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737188)

If police and judges are not abiding by the rules of society, why do they expect criminals to?

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 (0)

bhima (46039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737264)

can't help myself:

So you're saying the majority of America has decided breaking the law (due process, or whatever its called there) is necessary to punish people who... are... breaking the law?

If police and judges and administration are not abiding by the rules of society, why do they expect criminals to?

Re:Power lies in its users hands (2, Interesting)

s13g3 (110658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736975)

It all depends on the restraint of those who apply the law.

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 (1)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737005)

I saw an interesting sig yesterday here on /. -- "You have the right not be harassed by police, I have the right not to get blown up." Fair enough. These sort of laws scare the hell out of me, but then again, we need assurance against criminals of all sorts. Most of these laws aren't abused. I'm not defending Bush's policies, but so far as we know, he hasn't abused his executive spying 'privileges' yet (although it appears our gitmo-style prisons *have* been abused). Congress, when enacting such measures, needs to put tough, and I mean *tough*, laws, as well as checks and balances, on enforcement for when they abuse such privileges, as well as strict guidelines for what constitutes abuse. That way, gitmo-style disasters won't happen again and law enforcement will be held responsible for their mistakes.

Re:Power lies in its users hands (1)

kcbnac (854015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737124)

Friend of mine got sued by the FBI, for downloading mp3s, under the Patriot Act. Ended up getting a nice settlement check out of that one...never did hear all the details, should find them out...

Re:Unbelieveable (2, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736898)

Not to defend ASBOs, which are being used like candy rather than as a last ditch effort to restrain individuals (the worst bit is that if you violate the ASBO you can go to jail, which is very harsh). But are we really that suprised that a goverment has introduced legislation that enables "soft evidence" to be introduced and be used to curtail what someone is doing? The purpose of an ASBO is for the majority to be able to stop a minority doing something it doesn't like, not nice, not pretty.

But hell over with Mr Blair's favourite friend in Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law and can come from much less evidential grounds than the ASBOs and people are trying to avoid basic decency provisions such as the Geneva convention.

ASBOs... sad yes, unbelieveable? Certainly not.

Re:Unbelieveable (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736991)

Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law

Not anymore [hutchnews.com] ...

Re:Unbelieveable (2, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736997)

But hell over with Mr Blair's favourite friend in Washington people are being sent to a "camp" which is beyond the juristriction of all law and can come from much less evidential grounds than the ASBOs and people are trying to avoid basic decency provisions such as the Geneva convention.

To be perfectly blunt, people care differently about "those people" being opressed than when it begins happening to their own.

Re:Unbelieveable (2, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736913)

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 (4, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737045)

Think of ASBOs as restraining orders on behalf of the community. They aren't great, but they aren't the catastrophe you immediately assume.

The siezure of private property and imposing of arbitrary restrictions (that will lead to jail if violated) is not a catastrophe?

Re:Unbelieveable (4, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737082)

Imagine if restraining orders prohibited the people from even using any form of transport that could eventually take them close to the person that asked for the order, instead of just not being able to get close to him/her

Re:Unbelieveable (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737026)

Guilty before due process. What a load of shite.

"ASBO" is just EN-GB for "restraining order" (1)

evilandi (2800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737070)

voice_of_all_reason wrote: even if they've not been convicted

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" (2, Insightful)

NickFitz (5849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737242)

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 prosecution".

Basically, this would give the police arbitrary powers to drag anyone they want before the courts, say "We have no evidence whatsoever that they've done anything wrong but we happen to think they're a bit dodgy" and reduce them to homelessness and penury. You don't have to be a student of jurisprudence to see that this is very far from the concept of due process.

Re:Unbelieveable - step 2 (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737208)

"You have not been convicted of murder, but we are going to place you in jail for the next 50 years, w/o option for parole."

Re:Unbelieveable (1)

penguinblotter (599271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737211)

The government is also said to be developing eye-drops that will cure this antisocial behaviour. Looking forward to those...

not in the USA :-) (3, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736850)

For the first time ever a new cyber law make me happy I'm in the US and not the UK!
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 :-) (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736905)

Did you mean fat tubes? We can take our internets with us.

Re:not in the USA :-) (1)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736917)

Since when has the US government been bound by its constitution? Patriot Act, anyone?

Re:not in the USA :-) (3, Funny)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736923)

Let's move to Antarctica -- if everyone's against that (I know it's cold, but think of the overclocking you could do on stock air cooling!) we could always build a giant barge from old PC's (it would also be a functional beowulf cluser).

Re:not in the USA :-) (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737142)

While we are making our "raft" why don't we also make a virus and drug called "snow crash"?

Re:not in the USA :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736931)

"For the first time ever a new cyber law make me happy I'm in the US and not the UK!
FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US."

Just as demanding from an convicted persons to walk around with a board around his/her neck stating his conviction seems to be legal in the US, but not in the UK (or in any other civilized country for that matter :-) )

In other words : you seem to forget that this kind of, by you condoned, behaviour has, in your country, allready been going on for ages.

Re:not in the USA :-) (1)

sepluv (641107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737160)

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 would assume, they've got nothing better to do).

On topic, although I think, in principal, a simple way to punish anti-social behaviour is useful in some situations (though not much as the police should be prosecuting people for actual crimes), the ASBO is clearly totally disproportianate and does not go near offering a fair trial. The real problem is the police being too lazy to discover crime, find evidence and bring prosecutions. Instead they go after what are usually easy targets with punishments which are passed on the nod without a trial.

Re:not in the USA :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15737165)

"FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US."

You sure? Seems it falls a little under mental health laws, which in many countries, such laws are or used to be regularly abused.

Someone with far more knowledge on this matter should be commenting, but hasn't it historically been normal in the US for people suspected of mental illness to be locked up with little or no review for long periods of time? In fact, we have a rather long history of doing such a thing with little or no review and oversight.

This doesn't happen (much) today, due to a lot of mental health reform. But that doesn't stop police officers from threatening such action when one doth protest too much about their ineptitude in a particular situation.[1] Or from cases coming up about someone undergoing "review" because some non-health professional decided to inconvenience them because their authority was questioned.[2]

[1] This has happened to me twice. This is one area of the law in my state (Pennsylvania) where I haven't gotten around to reading up on--been busy reading up on other fun things (like how they can submit a "guily" plea for certain offenses in your absence and how the local magistrate system works (or rather, doesn't work)).

[2] Which is one of many reasons why I never care when media reports that such and such alleged criminal had a history of mental illness, given the stigma attached to such illness in this country. (And quite frankly, by the statistics, near everyone has such an issue at one time or another; evidence that one sought help shouldn't be indicative or suggesting fault.)

For the British-impaired (3, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736855)

Wikipedia's article on ASBOs [wikipedia.org] provides interesting reading on the subject. The article is a bit of a mess, but there is decent info in it, and the links list at the end is well worth perusing. These things are used against everything from vandals and thieves to hat-wearers.

Re:For the British-impaired (1)

vain gloria (831093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737206)

Wikipedia's article on ASBOs provides interesting reading on the subject. The article is a bit of a mess, but there is decent info in it, and the links list at the end is well worth perusing. These things are used against everything from vandals and thieves to hat-wearers.

That's suspected hat-wearers. No point taking risks, eh?

In other news (5, Funny)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736856)

In other news, the UK government is proposing that acquitted bank robbers be banned from banks.

Re:In other news (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736886)

how about we jsut ban people from money.. unless you have a LLC tax id you arn't alowed to have cash.. wait.. that is a diffrent country...

Your proposel has been heard ... (3, Informative)

gerddie (173963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736928)

Suspected cybercriminals could also have severe limitations imposed on their financial dealings, requiring them to use "notified financial instruments" such as credit cards and bank accounts, and limit the amount of cash they can carry.
Thank you for your input.

Re:In other news (1)

darcling (987237) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736903)

I also heard that an acquitted rapist is to be castrated and then banned from ever seeing a woman again.

Re:In other news (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737155)

banned from ever seeing a woman again.

That's a good thing. We need more Slashdotters.

Tough call... (2, Insightful)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736865)

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... (2, Interesting)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736904)

"How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?"


Ask Kevin Mitnick.

Re:Tough call... (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737214)

In Mitnick's case, the crime had very little to do with computers and far more to do with lying about his identity over the phone.

Re:Tough call... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736907)

That makes sense because there is no real need to use one in the first place.

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... (1)

crunch_ca (972937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736953)

Indeed. Does that mean they can't have a phone? What about an iPod? What about a programmable calculator...

Re:Tough call... (1)

Albio (854216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737014)

Can they still use the ATM? The self-checkout at supermarkets? Library electronic catalogues?

Re:Tough call... (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737055)

Indeed. Does that mean they can't have a phone? What about an iPod? What about a programmable calculator...

Or a car... even in carbureted cars, the carburetor is technically a mechanical analog computer.

-b.

Re:Tough call... (1, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737117)

However, computers are a different challenge... they are somewhat necessary in todays society

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.

How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?

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, program, or truck driver. If one abuses or misuses the knowledge and skills needed for one's career there is no reason not to ban one from practicing said knowledge and skills regardless of one's career.

Re:Tough call... (-1, Troll)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737194)

"How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?"

As a progrmmer, you knew hacking was illegal. You may not use a computer now. Go flip burgers loser.

Re:Tough call... (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737266)

How do you tell and convicted hacker, also a programmer, that he can't use a computer?

The same way you tell a convicted sex offender they can't work at a school anymore.

WTF? (5, Insightful)

darcling (987237) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736878)

Three words - W.T.F.?

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 ... could also have computer equipment taken away by the police"

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? (1)

joshier (957448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736986)

What I don't understand is the amount of people (if this does pass) that will be in jails.

Already, the UK jails are bursting.. they really are! Where do they expect them to go??

It seems like this is just a huge push for further corruption, which is such a strange thought at first, since the whole idea of this is to "remove corruption".. the fact of the matter is, there are crimes everywhere all the time in the UK - and when criminals come out of prison they never change, and sometimes they come out worse...

This will cause the opposite effect, and in my personal opinion, they want a mass population decrease.

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737143)

I'm not sure "constitutional" really matters much here anymore.

Re:WTF? (3, Interesting)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737263)

Everyone here is missing the point. Asbos work and they work well, they're not abused yet and have mostly been used on complete assholes.

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? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737265)

I'm not a UK citizen - never been there (and thanks to this new law I'll never visit!), but in the US the government has clearly proven that they can't use their existing power in a reasonable and prudent manner. In fact, they can't do much of anything right. It is pretty sad when the only difference between the two parties is that one will tax you to get lots of money so that they can waste it, while the other will borrow the same amount of money so they can waste it on slightly different things. Freedom has been over in the US for a long, long time.

I have a fundamental problem... (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736885)

I have a fundamental problem with this:

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.

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... (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737029)

Welcome to Blair's Britain.

The irony is that most people actually seem to think ASBOs are a good thing.

Rich.

Re:I have a fundamental problem... (1)

deanj (519759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737172)

Blair decided all this all by himself?

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... (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737262)

Blair decided all this all by himself?

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... (1)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737233)

Welcome to Blair's Britain.
How much longer until Blair can be removed from office? At least here in the USA, we only have to deal with Bush until 2008 and then the Constitution prevents the dummy from being able to be president ever again!

Re:I have a fundamental problem... (0, Troll)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737140)

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.

This watering-down of rights amounts to treason, nothing more or less. It's a violation of the spirit of British law from the Magna Carta forward, and will serve to destroy Britain in the long run.

Wait... doesn't Britain still have the death penalty for treason? Bring on the ropes and blindfolds, please. Cromwell was exhumed, hanged, drawn, and quartered two years after he died. Perhaps it's time to resume this fine tradition upon the current scoundrels in government. But ... they're not dead yet... well, hanging and quartering tends to correct that!

This almost make you long for the days when the monarchy and the House of Lords were stronger. At least they knew their boundaries for the most part.

-b.

Re:I have a fundamental problem... (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737179)

Without being convicted of a crime, but having been convicted of a civil offense. Contrary to what the quoted passage appears to say, suspicion will not be enough to earn someone an ASBO.

Re:I have a fundamental problem... (1)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737191)

Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up

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?

WTF!!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736892)

Oh dear that's just horrid. I can't believe that people are that afraid of things they don't understand. I'm so happy I don't live in the UK.

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!? /cry

To my U.K. Bretheren... (0, Flamebait)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736900)

...sorry to hear about the fascists coming your way too. We're locked up tighter than a drum here in the U.S. if we don't support Bush or the war in Iraq or anti-gay legislation, or anti-middle and anti-lower income tax breaks. I guess the terrorists did win. The elections that is...

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren... (0, Redundant)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737161)

We're locked up tighter than a drum here in the U.S. if we don't support Bush or the war in Iraq or anti-gay legislation, or anti-middle and anti-lower income tax breaks.

So you're posting from prison then I take it?

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren... (-1, Troll)

Twiceblessedman (590621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737168)

Don't know why this was modded flaimebait when it's true. I guess people are just too afraid to admit it. If I had some mod points I'd mod you up.

Re:To my U.K. Bretheren... (0)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737250)

"We're locked up tighter than a drum here in the U.S. if we don't support Bush or the war in Iraq or anti-gay legislation, or anti-middle and anti-lower income tax breaks."

Bullshit. Give real examples.

Feeling guilty? (5, Insightful)

TheOrangeMan (884380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736908)

Guilty untily proven guilty.

More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (5, Informative)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736915)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736980)

and i thought the tories were bad....these guys make them look positivly liberal...

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736981)

Hey, if it keeps going this way, I hear Guy Forkes masks are going qite cheaply these days.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

And lots of awesome explosions.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737015)

UK Slashdotters: let's make sure we punish these lunatics at the next general election.

You're just begging for an ABSO, aren't you?

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737034)

You don't wanna know what an ABSO is; it's much harsher than an ASBO. Really.

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 (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737028)

You should punish these lunatics at the next general election and vote Conservative so you can abhor their reactionary, quasi-populist approach to law enforcement that will ultimately criminalise non-conformists.

Tough choice...

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (1)

too_old_to_be_irate (941323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737031)

Well said, and all that, but the alternative is what/who? We effectively have a one party state, with a few minor variations to the authoritarian seasoning, and a daily dose of public pantomime to give a semblance of discussion. In reality, it's all sewn up tighter than a vasectomised scrotum.

I may yet live to regret my /. nick.

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (1)

joshier (957448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737046)

UK guy here too.. and yeah, it's disturbing, I guess this is just some part of a bigger plan.

I don't know what to really say, I mean, in my comment above, I express my feelings that this will only increase crime, and it seems like it's a way of decreasing the population ... I mean, the criminals who go into prison will probably only get worse, and when they come out they might be so screwed up and go killing people.. I don't know really, it's so odd.

Anyway, by the time people realize that all their rights have gone, they may decide that their judgments of blair in the first place were wrong..

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (1)

NeilSkoglund (974504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737064)

riot time me thinks? id hate to work in an IT firm and get an ASBIT (asbo being clever) :-p

Re:More New Labour thuggery from the Home Office (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737244)

I am in Canada, so I don't have access to all the info you have in the U.K., but I was under the impression that Antisocial Behavior Orders where seen as a "progressive" and "democratic" thing, and have broad support from all parties. The Right love it because it is "tough" on "criminals", and the Left love it because it provides the aparatus for social engineering, and the middle of the road people love it because it is populist.

I don't really think voting out the labour party will have any effect, as it seems to be part of a larger ideological shift towards more and more government control over people's lives (this shift seems to be a global thing, by the way). People in the UK, like many people elsewhere, are having a love affair with authority and government. As long as people see firm government action as the solution to all problems, then tools to allow government to take more firm action are going to be popular. Government can't save us all if it has it's hands tied, right?

Never expect a thief to stay in jail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736932)

Never expect a hacker to stay away from the Internet. Especially with unprotected (or poorly protected) wireless access points. :)

Bring back shunning instead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736939)

Oh wait, they're antisocial, so that won't work.

Okay, it's off to the stocks and cabbage.

So long, due process... (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736956)


we hardly knew ye.

And in the US.... (1)

Bomarc (306716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736966)

They call it "Homeland Security"

  -- I'm astounded by the number of people that don't have a problem with what the government is doing.

Re:And in the US.... (1)

deanj (519759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737199)

Actually, this can't happen in the US (no matter what the tinfoil hatters say), because it's against the Constitution.

It'd be thrown out of court.

Next!

banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD? (1)

alpinerod (970358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736983)

Banishing from the internet: no email, web, which to me means that any chance for any decent job is non-existent. Would you like fries with that?

Re:banishing would-be hackers to a life job @ McD? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737198)

I'm sorry, that EPOS machine you are using is technically a computer, get back to your mopping slave.

Scare Tactics (1)

bigtimepie (947401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736994)

I think it's all talk. What are they going to do? Go door to door trying to find out who's using their computer "cybercrime"? Even if it becomes legislation, the enforcement will be weak. They're just trying to scare people away from "cybercrime".

Re:Scare Tactics (1)

Bob MacSlack (623914) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737106)

I think it'll be more like: someone accuses you of breaking into their computer (former boss, ex, whatever), goes to court and you're acquitted on all counts because you didn't do it, "Oh by the way, since you were accused you were probably guilty, here's an ASBO, don't touch a computer ever again. Have a nice day."

Antisocial Personality Disorder (5, Informative)

Pancake Bandit (987571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737043)

Sidenote for anyone who thinks it's funny to call it "antisocial behavior":

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 (1)

darcling (987237) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737094)

From the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition - the de facto standard for mental disorders):

"The essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder. Because deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder..."

Justice! :) (1)

Intangion (816356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737062)

i suspect you might say something indecent, so your not allowed to talk again
ever
we are going to have to remove your tounge now

also there is a small chance you might pick pocket people with those hands of yours, so lets just remove those too.. might as well take the whole arm, dont want you jacking anyone in the face with your nubs

also we dont want you to ever run from the law so we are gonna have to take your legs too

define: Hackers (1)

davro (539320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737093)

Hacker/Cracker now that could be an intresting definition for the courts to sort out.
Come visit us in are nice new police state.

Bush and Blair should face a international criminal court for plunged the world into conflict by planning and executing a war of aggression.
Nuremberg treaty
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20020412.php [currentconcerns.ch]

Re:define: Hackers (1)

davro (539320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737212)

Im sure there has to be a human right issue here....

All we have todo is turn compter hacking into a religion and we have cracked it, excuse the pun.
Right to freedom of "thought, conscience and religion"

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15737096)

There has been a noted increase in hackers targeting wireless hotspots and using them for whatever.

Just a first step... (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737133)

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?

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 will be taking away your car even if they don't don't find you guilty of any traffic offenses. This type of law would just make criminals of otherwise honest people. If anyone with a B.S. in Computer Science was targetted with this law, you'd be reduced to flipping burgers or being a manager because you wouldn't beable to use a computer. Heck, managers and burger flippers need to use computers now a days. So they just want to use this to drive some one towards a life of crime to survive?

They expect this to work?? (2, Insightful)

BBlinkk (985908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737137)

Even if they do pass this, remember who they are "banning" from computer... hackers. I'm pretty sure that these hackers will be able to use computers/internet anyways even if they are banned. If they are already committing cybercrimes, I doubt some legislation banning them from the internet (and any other blocks from an ISP) is going to keep them off.

Ignoring the ASBO will be a criminal offence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15737146)

...a double bonus for anybody who thinks about ignoring an ASBO (court order) because they did nothing wrong. If it comes to that, I might as well be in prison and at least I'll have bragging rights if I nut the judge. I'd like to extend my gratitude to my government for their continued criminalisation of society.

Brilliant idea... (1)

g253 (855070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737152)

... and really easy to put into practice : as far as I know it has never been possible for anyone, not even a hacker, to buy a computer or browse the web without a proper ID, so there should be no significant trouble enforcing this clever law.

Won't do a thing... (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737158)

"The UK government has proposed that suspected cybercriminals could be banned from the Internet or have their PCs seized"

Anyone who has been living in the UK for the past 12 months will know that all these guys need to do is say that restricting their access to the internet infringes on their human rights and they'll be back at it within a few days...

How long before... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737175)

...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 sure they don't touch a computer?

Discretionary powers (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737226)

The Blair government loves to grant discretionary powers to the police, ministers, civil servants and quangos. The problem is that these powers, once granted, can't be properly regulated - the authorities can always choose to overlook certain cases and enforce other cases strictly. This runs contrary to the principle of equality before the law. As Julius Telesin said, "What are 'laws' anyway in the Soviet Union? They exist only on paper, and in practice the authorities always do what they want." [ucl.ac.uk]

Karl Popper argued against discretionary powers in The Open Society and its Enemies [bluehaze.com.au] : "The use of discretionary powers is liable to grow quickly, once it has become an accepted method, since adjustments will be necessary, and adjustments to discretionary short-term decisions can hardly be carried out by institutional means. . . . governments live from hand to mouth, and discretionary powers belong to this style of living--quite apart from the fact that rulers are inclined to love these powers for their own sake." This concise description of the problem with New Labour's method of government was written in 1943.

Nazi States (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737230)

Yup good old Britain, my birthplace will prolly beat the yanks to full a full authoritarian state. Not by much I imagine. The bottom line is that these states think the country is far more importent than any citizen. With the amount of corporate influence in government these days it is not at all out of the definition to call them budding fascist states.

  Wonderful.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Refugees (-1, Flamebait)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737235)

We welcome our UK refugee-brothers to come to our free land of the United States. Wait, no, no we don't. Stay in your tea drinking, crumpet eating, draconian state. Have your own Boston Tea part I say!!!!

It's stunning (2, Insightful)

MojoBox (985651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737246)

Quite amazing how readily European nations give up there freedoms for a little creature comforts. Come on EU'ers, grow a pair! Take some chances in life.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>