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.

[A. Pole]

I don't how a conservative could oppose the most severe punishment for hackers that spread viruses.

The punishment should be measured by sense of justice, common good and mercy and not to be the most severe as possible. You confuse conservatism with the cruelty.

[joathome]

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

Agreed.

Let's see. If I walked into a government office building and started defacing property, destroying furniture, throwing computers out the windows, I'd be criminally charged. But some folks around here act like hackers, who actually can destroy a lot more than I could have, should be treated like little pranksters.

I'M SO GLAD THE GROWN-UPS ARE IN CHARGE AGAIN!

[A. Pole]

guy across the street comes over to borrow your weedwhacker while you're not home

weedwhacker? Are you crazy? This can a very dangerous tool. Life sentence without parole is a too mild punishment.

[A. Pole]

Polish your chains, here comes the master. Freedom dies and slavery is what they manipulate for us. Once they charge you for anything, your life becomes hell. Innocence is not an issue. Ironic as it seems this war on terrorism will be as successful as the war on drugs. That war brought our prision population up to 2.2 Million inmates from 300,000 and we have more drugs than ever.

But if you have even more prisoners you can accomplish better things that Soviet Union did under Stalin. Think only about all the canals the built, how they colonized the North, defeated Hitler and worked all those mines. Man, this is the example to emulate. Not to be some bleeding heart wimps.

[zog]

"doesn't that scare you"--actually, yes, it does. We are right now witnessing in front of our eyes all the direst predictions of a klintoon martial law scenario being promoted by the majority of the public, including the bulk of the R's, and of the large amount of the so called governmental "leaders". It stinks, but it will go through in this reaction to a calamity that for all practical purposes can be laid squarely at government and big businesses feet, if you follow the cause and effect food chain back far enough. Their global free trade "business" and "law" policies lead substantially to the vulnerabilities we have just "enjoyed", and against which we had the constantly ridiculed warnings of a small handful of people. Now we have the same "experts" who will "come up with the solutions", the "response to terrorism". Uh huh, yep, I am real thrilled at this prospect, and doubly thrilled by the numbers of people who will march right off the cliff, not with them, but at their "orders". Not.

Hate to say it, but this is turning into the conservative equivalent of the columbine massacre making the liberals demand more "gun laws".

government=(create a) problem, reaction, solution, in most cases.

[DAnconia55]

Well, well, well....

I'm shocked, I say. Shocked.

[B Knotts]

and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."

Hmmm...come to think of it, under this definition, this proposal itself qualifies as a terrorist act.

So, the Attorney General may have to prosecute himself.

Don't get me wrong; I agree with him on a lot of stuff. But on this, he's all wet.

[independentmind]

Take a look at this one.

[independentmind]

The punishment should be measured by sense of justice, common good and mercy and not to be the most severe as possible.

Actually the punishment should be determined by:

1) the intent of the hacker

2) the harm caused by the hacker

3) the nature of what was hacked--(e.g. consumer product vs. national security product)

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Question : Who wrote this Legislation? DOJ with input their attorneys? Ashcroft himself? ex-judges? How do these things take shape?

To say a teenaged hacker trying to impress his girlfriend is a terrorist is a bit of a stretch. Yes, he should have been punished, and punished severely. But life in prison?

Looks like the feds think zero-tolerance is the way to go.

Just damn. I love my country, I support my president, but that does not mean I will roll over and play dead when it comes this.

[Storm Orphan]

And now we redefine hacking to be "terrorism."

Wonder how long before gun ownership is terrorism?

OWK - *ping*

[Bobsat]

If the most severe penalty for cyber-terrorism we can get is life imprisonment, I'll settle for it despite how I really feel....

[clee1]

As a long time IT professional, let me tell you that hacking deserves a LONG jail sentence.(I don't support life w/o parole, though). Even the most innocent of intrusions cost billions a year to businesses, and any info stolen could be as dangerous to the general public as an opressive fed gov't can be.

[clee1]

Small correction: thats ex post facto laws and I'm sure the USSC would strike down that provision as soon as someone challenged it.

[LSJohn]

Lots of scary stuff. Most of it predicted by the tinfoil brigade, who are still being laughed at for pointing out that the right crisis could cause a majority of the public to support almost precisely this.

Any competent fedgov geek can make it appear as though almost anything came from your computer, even to timing it when only you were at home.

Ya think the average jury's going to buy that the defendant is the victim of a vast government conspiracy?

If this passes in its present form I just might go off-line permanently -- but then they could probably "prove" to most juries that I did it on the library computer.

$#!t !

[UnChained]

On the heels of the OKC bombing, Clinton tried to push through some anti-terrorist legislation that would have given the executive branch power the declare any group it chose to be a terrorist organizations and would have allowed the imprisonment and seizure of the assets of anyone providing any kind of aid to said terrorists.

A broadly worded power like this in the hands of someone like BIll Clinton would have been scary. Churches, political enemies of Bill and even FreeRepublic and its membership could easily have been targets.

Fortunately for us, congress was too sensible to be stampeded into supporting such dictatorial power in the executive.

It gives me pause how similar the current anti-terrorism act resembles what Clinton wanted but couldn't get. With the protracted war on terrorism that GWB pushes, will it still be in place when Hillary is annointed as queen by the media in seven years?

[BigOrra]

Apologies to my slip-up in wording. It is ex post fact, just don't condemn me for it ipso facto.

[UnChained]

Whoops! meant to say "...that GWB promises..."

[BigOrra]

Oops, again.
Apologies to my slip-up in wording. It is ex post facto, just don't condemn me for it ipso facto.