Slashdot Log In
American Movie Execs Could Face Aussie Jails For Hacking
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Aug 06, 2002 03:40 AM
from the but-but-but dept.
from the but-but-but dept.
pegacat points to a story in the Melbourne Age which says that "American movie, recording and software executives could be arrested if they travel to Australia, could be prohibited from entering Australia, or could be extradited to face criminal charges if Californian Democrat congressman Howard Berman's copyright protection bill, which allows cracking
of computers, passes into law." That's because "Under section 9a of the Victorian Summary Offences Act (1966), 'a person must not gain access to, or enter, a computer system or part of a computer system without lawful authority to do so'. The penalty if convicted is up to six months' jail."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Amendment (Score:4, Funny)
One can only begin to imagine what this will bring - an amendment to the bill prohibiting extradition of media company execs to Australia.
Re:Amendment (Score:2)
Re:Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
To put it in a way that makes sense to the impressionable out there, these execs are seeking immunity from acts of cyber-crime on regular individuals(like you...you never used napster or kazaa though, right?).
to put in a way the rest of us can comprehend, this amalgamation of corporations is seeking the legal permission to the equivilant of vigilante justice. Unfortunately, while this is generally illegal(especially when this form of 'justice' takes the form of an especially illegal act itself) for the common man, it's a-okay for a huge, irresponsible, amoral corporation to have, because they have the money to bribe the oh-so-bribable US polititans. The results of this law passing would be far reaching, possibly setting precident down a long road where corporations begin to gain more and more rights to seek vigilante justice, first on-line, but someday, perhaps in the real world.
While I disagreed with the imprisonment of dimitry, because it was due to a law which did not make sense, was immoral, and was obviously bought, the thought of imprisoning criminals who happen to be rich enough to get an exemption appeals to me.
Parent
Re:Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlike mafiaboy, these are supposedly adults. They won't get the benefit of going through the juvenile court system.
Re:Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
All funding measures, however, are required to be initiated in the House of Representatives.
This was not even similar to the consititutional protocols. Not even similar. Now I will grant that it's harder to get a 2/3 vote out of 100 people than out of 26. It's even harder to get them together quickly. But it shouldn't really be that difficult if it's a matter that really is urgent, and if it isn't, what are we doing going to war over it?
Re:Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and a law permitting the US armed forces to invade Australia to free captured media company execs.
Since when did the US need a law to invade foreign countries? Hell, they do it even where there are international laws forbidding them from doing it.
Parent
Re:Amendment (Score:3)
Re:Invasion != declaring war (Score:4, Informative)
No it isn't. The president can invoke the War Powers Act of 1973 [indiana.edu]. It allows for 60 days of war-like activity without the intervention of Congress. The president is required to consult with Congress first but that usually never happens. The issue of a president causing a war is only a problem when there is enough backlash to stop him/her from doing so. I'm not trolling but there won't be much backlash against a war ever since the Vietnam War caused so much division in the country. Anti-war advocates are generally written off as anti-American by the public and their cries for a halt to aggressiveness is largely ignored.
Blame the 60's and early 70's for america's war-like culture. Well, you can also blame other countries/organizations for trying to kill Americans just because they're Americans but people don't like to talk about that.
Parent
Re:Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
go aussies go!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Go Aussies Go!!!
or maybe they'll blackmail the Australian government into passing similar legislation, on the threat that there won't be any more films made in their country (so: bye bye dollars...)
Re:go aussies go!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Symbolic threats are meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
And please, don't quote the Gandhi 'First, they laugh at you' thing again. Without a concerted effort from other Western nations (at a minimum), the closest thing this approximates is a soggy spitball and straw against a tank.
well (Score:3, Insightful)
if Rosen pays someone to hack for her why shouldn't she be responsible for it in the same fashion
Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)
The laws don't work the same when you're rich and famous. Don't be so naive.
Lawful authority? (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't the bill be considered lawful authority? If Australian law can be applied to US citizens, it's likely (though I ain't anal) that US law would apply to those same citizens.
Then again, Australia has a long and distinguished record of being a penal colony for the British, maybe it's time to reinstate that concept and ship RIAA and MPAA execs, all of Arthur Andersen, and all Fortune 500 CEOs to a remote part of the Aussie outback. We can even turn it into a spectator sport - Survivor 2.0 - broadcasting it live with free Internet feeds from ROVs orbiting the area. "Will Bill Gates eat Steve Ballmer? Tune in tomorrow on Survivor 2.0, same time, same server!"
Re:Lawful authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
*snort* Laws passed by any sovereign country are only valid inside that country. The USA can pass as many crap bills as it wants - Australian courts would likely tell you to fuck off and give you six months jail for that kind of argument.
And as for a "long and distinguished record of being a penal colony" 1788 (first landing) to 1868(last convicts shipped off to Australia) is 80 years, and 134 years ago now. So back off, pal.
Although , we *do* have a lot of desert out there... maybe a survivor 2.0 as suggested would be ok.
Parent
Re:Lawful authority? (Score:3, Funny)
However not quite long enough to remove the chip from the shoulder obviously
Re:Lawful authority? (Score:5, Funny)
Be British, Go to America, make a comment about 'Visiting the Colonies', listen to reaction, smile knowingly to yourself.
Be American, Go to Britain, make a comment about 'Having to save your asses in every war', listen to reaction, smile knowingly to yourself.
Trolling had a long aural tradition before Usenet was invented.
Parent
Good Aussie joke here (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Lawful authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or continue the hypocrisy with...
c) If an Australian broke an American law while in Afghanistan then the Americans will kidnap the Australian and hold him illegally without representation in a US military base.
Parent
Re:Lawful authority? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hang on a minute! (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean that movie executives will not be able to travel outside of the US at all?! Cool!
Yeah, so I'm a dreamer. I know full well that Tony "Grining Laky" Blair would never arrest an American movie executive for something like this. It would make George Bush (His pal) cry, and we can't have that!
‘The Computer Misuse Act 1990’ Section 1; (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990
As for the possibility of Tony Blair (UK Prime-Minister), some how excusing this, that is not likely. There is plenty of separation between the UK Judiciary and Politicians. UK Judges are not elected but appointed and once appointed are nearly impossible to remove. UK Judges also seem to regularly take delight in giving politicians the finger, when the latter attempt to step on their toes. i.e. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2162940.stm
Parent
Re:Australia's PM == Bush's poodle (Score:3, Informative)
I have doubts about that. The Dems supported the Copyright Act Amendments (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (i.e. the Australian DMCA) and, like the Labor Party, tend to support the entertainment industry. Given their courting of the corporate dollar before last year's election (publicity of which they tried to avoid by holding fundraiser events at undisclosed locations), they're just a little too close to the vested interests in this issue for my tastes.
It's entirely possible that any sort of Bermanesque bill will pass without any significant opposition, which, given that the media tends to only report issues about which there is political conflict, means that there would probably not be much coverage at all.
Not just aussies people!!! (Score:3)
Same laws that prohibit entering and breaking in computer systems are in effect all around europe, and personally, I as a dutch person would love to see someone from the RIAA or MPAA hang in front of the new ICC in The Hague (That would be a laugh!)
DoS my gnut and come over if you dare!!!
Black/While/Grey (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is wrong don't do it. Take cracking or DoS attacks. Totally wrong. Lock them up and throw away the key.
But you start to legislate that it's okay for some users (I don't care how much money Hollywood has, they are still users just like you and me) to crack and DoS others then you make it grey. So the next time you catch a cracker you've got a much harder job dealing with him. And the next time it's harder still. And fairly soon cracking just becomes one of those things you live with.
At least the Aussies are doing their hardest to keep it black and white.
But I don't think it makes much differance. The US Government doesn't seem to give a toss about what the rest of the world thinks. As long as those campaign contributions keep pouring in nothing else matters. (Don't you just love democracy.)
Not extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
No way Australia would be able to extradite anyone from the US for doing this. Generally, extradition treaties only come into effect when a crime is recognised as such by both countries. So Germany can extradite someone from the US for murdering a German national, but they can't extradite someone from the US for claiming that the holocaust never happened. (A serious offense in Germany).
This can even extend to whether the country holding a person believes the penalties they face will be fair and reasonable. My understanding is that countries such as the UK have refused to hand over criminals because they may face the death penalty in the country requesting extradition.
Incidentally, other state and federal laws present greater penalties than 6 months (as apparantly the Victorian laws do). Where I am (Western Australia), it's up to 2 years jail for simply breaching security and having a look. Up to 10 years if I actually cause damage.
Just label computer crimes as terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just label computer crimes as terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Or when, say, our own government does it...
Re:Not extradition (Score:3, Insightful)
In this new global age, it dosnt matter if the crime you are 'extradited' is not illegal in the country you come from.
Re:Not extradition (Score:4, Insightful)
Like when Carter sent the Delta Force to get the US Hostages from Iran? Sure, the mission screwed up and had to be aborted (like most of the Carter presidency, actually), but that's the most similar case. No Congressional approval was requested ahead of time.
I bet it hurts your brain to think that Carter, a good Liberal who oversees foreign elections and builds houses for poor people, sent US troops to a foreign (Muslim, even) nation without the permission of Congress or a declaration of war. He's also one of those evil born-again Christians, in case you're interested.
The only sensible way for the rest of the world to react to this kind of nonsense is to isolatie the US from the rest of the world. No more trade. Maybe if its export markets plummets to rock bottom, the US will realise they've done something wrong.
You know nothing about economics. Cutting trade hurts in both directions. It would be an economic disaster for the rest of the planet if the US economy was removed from the system.
And US grain exports feed a good chunk of the world. Raise your hands if you want to starve people in the Third World because you are mad about DVD encryption.
America haters need to get their priorities straight. Or just admit that they are raving loonies who don't care about anything as long as America is reduced to smoking ashes.
-jon
Parent
How much does it cost? (Score:3, Funny)
the joys of global law. (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong dept., timmy (Score:3, Funny)
I expect that bad things happen in Aussie jails...
"G'day, mate! Wouldya like jelly or syrup?"
(((shudder)))
Talisman
Steve the Crocodile Hunter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Steve the Crocodile Hunter (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
So do most states . . .. (Score:4, Informative)
Absent an express preemption clause, the bill would not have the desired effect for its authors -- and if they added an express preemption clause, the bill might become defective as unconstitutional under a host of theories.
EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps some kind of public corporation could be formed, with membership limited to, say, humans who could be identified with a physical body. And stock could be purchased by submitting a work of GPL software for ownership by the corporation (so that there would be a large number of pieces of copyright stuff to check for). (I didn't say it had to be good software. Perhaps a variation of "Hello, World." would suffice.) Then all owners of the corporation would be entitled to check for the presence of copyrighted works on suspect computers. (Bet'cha they've got something substantially similar of one of the thousands of variations of "Hello, World." that would be owned by the corporation.)
Claim your prize! (Score:4, Funny)
You have been selected as the winner of this month's fabulous appliance giveaway! You may claim your free Koala-brand washer/dryer set, Antarctic Refrigerator or Shrimp-On-The-Barbie barbecue set! Your plane ticket for coming to claim this prize is included in this envelope. Simply fly to Australia round-trip on us, and be available for us to capture on film as we photograph the winners*.
Don't delay - act now to claim your prize.
Sincerely,
Australian Bureau of Law Enforcement and Consumer Marketing
*In front and side shots
Re:Maybe I need to RTFA (Score:2)
in other words. a movie exec can, by us law, enter a computer to delete their own property. if that computer happens to be in aussie, then that movie exec is breaking the aussie law.
Re:Maybe I need to RTFA (Score:2)
No need to pass the bill - the law against unlawful computer access is already present in Australia (or Victoria , anyway). If someone can prove that said media execs did indeed get unlawful entry into an Australian computer system, then regardless of whether it is legal in the U.S., they're still breaking Australian law.
Break pretty much *any* sovereign country's law (in their own country) and you can expect to face the consequences if they have an extradition treaty with your country, and they're irritated enough to go through the paperwork.
Re:Maybe I need to RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does Australia have an extradition treaty ? (Score:2)
Think of the reverse - if you live in Australia and hack into the Pentagon, I wouldn't consider yourself too safe from prosecution.
Re:Does Australia have an extradition treaty ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whoohoo. (Score:2)
see, i would imagine them doing so without hesitation. and then when it goes to "trial", the defense (you) would claim your computer was shutdown by means of
sorry dude, i just dont think the guv'ment has the ability to understand really technical concepts. if they could, there would be no DMCA, fFor example.
Re:Um, look again folks, this is a strange one... (Score:4, Insightful)
The break-in would be occurring in Australia, not the U.S. If such international authority of U.S. law existed, there would be no law besides U.S. law. Remember the Helms anti-Cuba act, which let the U.S. sanction any foreign business doing business with Cuba? That didn't go far because the EU (which does lots of business with Cuba) didn't like the U.S. trying to extend our laws onto their turf.
Claiming immunity under the Campaign Contributor Hacking Permission Act might have just the same effect.
Contrary to calling congressmen to stop this thing, I'm thinking of calling them to keep it going. It's a gamble, but this law is sooo bad on both sensible and constitutional grounds (14th Amendment) that maybe it'll be the one to finally raise public awareness as to what's going on.
Aussies, time to amend your act to say that if someone performs hacking as a company employee, all officers in that chain of command are liable for jail terms up to the level the general action was even informally approved. We know Rosen loves the idea, so bye-bye.
Interestingly enough, Valenti is backing off because he realizes the bill allows any copyright holder to hack, not just the big guys.
Parent
Lawful authority, but only in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I see it, the Australians are calling the game right. What the law is essentialy allowing is vigilante vandalism within the US. It's the same as if the MPAA/RIAA sent goons over to whack your home entertainment system with baseball bats.
Now even if this were allowed in the USA, it ain't allowed in Australia*. Even if the target is an American, as soon as the goons start vandalising Australian property, they're subject to Australian jurisdiction. Their corporate masters could aso be charged for giving the orders ("taking out a contract").
Parent