Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act

Security Focus ^ | Sep 23 2001 | Kevin Poulsen

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Justice Department proposal classifies most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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...

Go after the guys who didn't do it. Makes sense to me.

[Dan De Quille]

and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."

What does this mean?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What does this mean?

Whatever they want it to mean.

[Common Tator]

Go after the guys who didn't do it. Makes sense to me.

That's right. Wait 'till a fire starts.. then we'll discuss geting a fire department. Eveyone knows a fire department is just oppresive taxation until the fire starts.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Life in prison for hackers?

Bummer.

[Robert A Cook PE]

See the damage done this past week by an "innocent virus" that did NOTHING but send emails ......

Happened to have a "Made in the (free) People's Republic of China" label on it.

Nah. We've got nothing to worry about from terrorist/foreign-inspired hackers BEFORE the fire kills people - we've just be warned by the fire bell that is HAS been lit.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That's right. Wait 'till a fire starts.. then we'll discuss geting a fire department. Eveyone knows a fire department is just oppresive taxation until the fire starts.

You are absolutely correct. We can never be to safe. Let's get rid of all the guns too. It's too late when somebody gets shot.

[zog]

--check this out. "Freeping" a governmental officials email address could be construed as a DOS attack. RICO. organized on a website, and etc.

Don't laff, 1500 farmers are out of water under the BUSH administration, for a suckerfish. would anyone have though that possible even 10 years ago?

I keep thinking, wtc/pentagon was just too useful a happening to pass up exploiting by the goons. We'll see more loss of freedoms over this incident than over the sum total of everything else the past 30 years, and just wait until the next attack.

[Dog Gone]

As far as I'm concerned, hackers, and creators of computer viruses, ought to be hung. Even that's too lenient.

[Poohbah]

You're right. Drawn and quartered first.

[gunshy]

And this ba$tard won't go after the Clintons.

[BigOrra]

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...

Isn't there a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America that contains a clause prohibiting the creation of ipso facto laws. It has always been my understanding that changing the wording of a law in any way basically creates a new law, and if hopping on one leg was legal yesterday and illegal today, I couldn't be prosecuted on evidence that I hopped on one leg in the past, even if the statute of limitations for hopping on one leg were unlimited. A statute of limitations, cannot go back to before the day a law was enacted. A$#croft is really outdoing himself for striking while the iron is hot to usurp our civil liberties. It almost makes me miss Janet Reno...
What's next, will jaywalking be classified as "deliberate obstruction of mass transit" and punishable by life in prision?

[Hank Rearden]

I thought I saw Janet Ashcroft rubbing "his" hands together in glee this weekend.

[SubSailor]

Yeah, same goes for the punks who keeping puttin' dents in my mailbox with a baseball bat!

[Ol' Sparky]

I don't how a conservative could oppose the most severe punishment for hackers that spread viruses. We should be increasing the punishment for other crimes and be thankful for proper punishment for losers that create viruses.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As far as I'm concerned, hackers, and creators of computer viruses, ought to be hung. Even that's too lenient.

Depends on the definition of "hacking." There was some poor schmuck, a web designer by trade, who was checking the work of one of his coworkers by opening a newspaper's web site using FrontPage. He discovered that that he had full access to their site from FrontPage because they had neglected to password protect it. He called the newspaper editor to let him know.

Then next day he got a visit from the FBI. Eighteen months later a federal prosecutor offered him a plea bargain.

I posted the original article on Free Republic a few months ago. When I finally locate it I will post a link.

Bottom line is, people who know nothing about computers and programming consider EVERYTHING to be hacking.

[SubSailor]

Hang the hackers! Lethally inject the virus makers!

[Bill Rice]

"That's right. Wait 'till a fire starts.. then we'll discuss geting a fire department. Eveyone knows a fire department is just oppresive taxation until the fire starts.

While you DO have a point, I'm wondering how long after this gets passed until Bill Gates and others try to get copyright infringement violators considered for it.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You all are working under the impression that we even have rights.

We don't.

We only have the illusion of freedom (not freedom itself). Which some of you are about to find out the hard way.

Paul C. Jesup