Singapore Computer Crime Laws OK Preemptive Arrest

^^MAg^^ points to this Reuters story on CNN which begins "Ultra-strict Singapore has passed some of the world's toughest laws against computer hackers and virus writers, allowing police to arrest suspects before they strike, official documents show."

Whew

[vasqzr]

This coming from a country where chewing gum is illegal

Very scary

[pmz]

From the article: "Singapore's Internal Security Act, a Draconian law written by the island's former British colonial rules that allows for detention without trial and was used to halt communism in Singapore in the 1950s."

While not an advocate of Communism, I am very much an advocate of the First Amendment, and here we have a historical account about internal security laws putting to rest an entire ideology within a country. The USA should take this as a warning, before we end up a government-controlled monoculture or, at best, a government-selected and allowed group of subcultures.

Of course, we are already headed down this path, because it seems law enforcement is perfectly happy with racial and ethnic profiling, ignoring the reality of the Unabomber and Oaklahoma City So, now, we have law enforcement based on logical fallacy. That's just splendid.

Re:Very scary

[Zork the Almighty]

Quite frankly, there are too many people in western countries who see no problem with censorship (as long as it's not applied to them) or the reduction and suspension of rights and due process (again, as long as it's not applied to them). Sometimes I wish they could all live in Singapore for a year so they could see the effects firsthand.

Re:Very scary

[pmz]

True. This fact is reflected throughout existing laws. Basically most laws that mention sex fall into this category (i.e., non-missionary-style is illegal in North Carolina, IIRC, and Texas has laws about sodomy). These laws are blatany unconstitutional, yet they get passed anyway, because of the bigotry of people in state and federal congresses. While technically not censorship, the federal income tax laws are as biased as they come, where the government arbitrarily takes from one group and gives it to another. Racial profiling is unconstitutional, yet people do it. The Endowment for the Arts chooses who it funds. Etc. etc. etc. Whatever happened to equality under the law?

All these cases are very good arguements for keeping money and influence out of the government, because, once the government gets a new tool against the people, it will prod, twist, and bend the public with its arbitrary ideology defined by political motivation.

Re:Sounds like American rhetoric

[j-turkey]

Aren't you arguing FOR preemptive arrest then?

No -- I'm not arguing for pre-emptive arrest. None of these laws change the fact that conspiracy is, and always was a crime. If one plans to commit any crime, it's a conspiracy. There's no need for a specific pre-emptive law that increases the (already very severe) penalties. The only thing that this attempts to do is serve as a deterrent...which as I stated before, doesn't work against terrorists.

You are also ignoring the meat of my post that "cyberterrorism" is not the threat it's made out to be. It's either a way for governments to extend their power, or it serves as a poor answer to the public outcry ("do something!"). American public utilities and critical services are not part of, or in any way hooked up to the public Internet or any other public network (I don't know about Singapore's). If they were, the people who did set it up are recklessly, and potentially criminally, irresponsible (this goes for Singapore too).

--Turkey

Re:Very scary

[jazman_777]

It's already almost as bad as it can get.

No, it can still get _much_ worse. _And_ it's much worse now than it's been.