Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Crime Government Security The Courts

Life Sentences For Serious Cyberattacks Proposed In Britain 216

Posted by samzenpus
from the do-not-pass-go dept.
Bismillah (993337) writes 'The British government wants life in prison for hackers who cause disruption to computer networks, resulting in loss of life or threat to the country's national security. From the article: "The UK government will seek to amend the 1990 Computer Misuse Act "to ensure sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause. Currently, the law provides for a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment for those who commit the offence of impairing a computer. A new, aggravated offence of unauthorised access to a computer will be introduced into the Computer Misuse Act by the government, carrying far longer sentences."'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Life Sentences For Serious Cyberattacks Proposed In Britain

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Loss of life (Score:3, Interesting)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @07:23AM (#47170587)

    If a cyber attack kills somebody use the manslaughter laws

    Exactly.>/i>

    We already have laws covering both unauthorised access to a computer, and covering loss of life (whether negligent, unintentional, or premeditated). You don't need a new law to cover them both!

    Hacker causes life support machines to fail by setting off the sprinkler system, causing electrical faults? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Manslaughter (Unintended consequence, maximum life) = sentence
    Hacker causes industrial machinery of previous employer to fail catastrophically intentionallyy causing death? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Murder (Life) = sentence.

    It seems "Death by computer" is already covered.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @09:09AM (#47171101)

    Oh, the government claims they cannot release the names due to "operational considerations"...

    This is why allowing vague terms like "national security" or "terrorism" as a justification for any penalty in law is dangerous. There is a certain irony in this news arriving on the same day that there are moves to hold a terrorism trial completely in secret. It's not so long after the Gary McKinnon fiasco, either.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...