UK (hacker == terrorist) story

[nanode]

That article about "cyberterrorists" in the UK is really frightening. Apparently in th UK, law enforcement agencies have the discretion/burdern to determine what is a "violent" act. I suppose website defacing or DOS attacks are on par with vandalism, which in the physical world are often violent - otherwise I'm lost on the rationale.

Too bad the British don't have checks and balances like the U.S.

[Cameron McCurry]

Although the definition of terrorist is not etched in stone and the police seem to have a lot of leeway with this, I think the law itself isn't that bad of an idea. Should be interesting to see what happens with it.
And for those who protest about how this is a step in the wrong direction and computer crimes don't merit this kind of punishment, I have one thing to say:
If they don't commit the crime in the first place, they don't have anything to worry about.

[nanode]

I agree that only criminals should fear breaking the law - however the laws in themselves define who is a criminal.

I don't think it'd be useful to charge a teenager with an "act of terrorism" for rooting his school's ftp server. Even if you kicked in a door or picked a lock, I don't think you'd be charged with "terrorism".

Vandalism, theft, trespassing, those seem appropriate classifications for what kiddies often do.

[Cameron McCurry]

Originally posted by nanode:
Vandalism, theft, trespassing, those seem appropriate classifications for what kiddies often do.

From what I understand of the article, it covers people who endanger lives by breaking into computer systems, not things like denial of service attacks. I think it's appropriate to call those kind of people terrorists. The only thing that concerns me is that they leave too much up to the police to decide on.

[stavefan]

I'm confused, and maybe this is a good place/time to ask this question....

What is the difference between a hacker and a cracker?

I was told once that a hacker is someone who works on code, but a cracker is someone who maliciously modifies code, defaces websites, etc...

Is this a correct statement, and if so are hackers, (legitimit computer programmers) gettting a bad reputation? If the above statement is true, why has the media grasped onto the term hacker and not cracker?

thanks for the input
stavefan

[freaker]

i know where I'm not going (UK) ever..
dont get me wrong, I 'm not a hacker at all, just like to poke around.. If they mistake that for hacking, I'd be screwed..


freaker :cool:

[Cameron McCurry]

Originally posted by stavefan:
I was told once that a hacker is someone who works on code, but a cracker is someone who maliciously modifies code, defaces websites, etc...

Is this a correct statement, and if so are hackers, (legitimit computer programmers) gettting a bad reputation? If the above statement is true, why has the media grasped onto the term hacker and not cracker?

From what I understand, it is a correct statement. As for the media, what can you expect? Hacker sounds more evil and able to get someone's attention.
And freaker, the kind of poking around your doing isn't malicious, so you wouldn't have much to worry about.
But if you did it on my computer, I'd cheerfully break your fingers.
:cool:

[Sterling]

For a good definition of the hacker/cracker split, see http://www.tuxedo.com/~esr/jargon/html . That's the URL (I hope) for the official version of the Jargon File, AKA the Hacker's Dictionary.

Of course, the only checks and balances we really have here now are money, money, and more money. Witness the fact that the US government filed a brief, on the side of the MPAA, in the DeCSS case. They basically said that linking to or telling someone where to get something illegal is illegal. That then raises the question of "what about linking to someone who links to someone who links to....", which would mean that pretty much the entire internet was illegal - its rumored to be possible to reach any site in less than seven hops, without using search engines.

[Cameron McCurry]

Actually, it's .org
Interesting site though.

[nanode]

sterling:


They basically said that linking to or telling someone where to get something illegal is illegal. That then raises the question of "what about linking to someone who links to someone who links to....", which would mean that pretty much the entire internet was illegal -


That's easy enough for us to deal with. If enough people continue to mirror "objectionable" material, the laws will appear unenforceable and eventually disregarded.

Alcohol was once illegal in the US, but so many people continued to drink, not to mention the criminal aspect, that it was easier to accomodate the masses than enforce the law.

The way I look at it, I do what I do and if some judge declares it a violation of law, I become a criminal. I'm concerned that some of these rulings feel almost retroactive.