Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Crime Security

EU Countries Closer To Mandatory Minimum Sentence Cap For Hacking 154

Posted by samzenpus
from the fixing-the-guidelines dept.
angry tapir writes "Hackers would face up to two years or more in prison no matter where they live in the European Union under a new draft law approved by the European Parliament's civil liberties committee. The proposed rule would prevent E.U. countries from capping sentences for any type of hacking at less than two years. Meanwhile the maximum sentence possible for cyberattacks against 'critical infrastructure,' such as power plants, transport networks and government networks would be at least five years in jail. The draft directive, which updates rules that have been in place since 2005, would also introduce a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment for creating botnets."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Countries Closer To Mandatory Minimum Sentence Cap For Hacking

Comments Filter:
  • Nice concept (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:34AM (#43934067)

    When we talk about debt its every country for himself. When we talk about corruption and murder is every country for himself. Talk about hacking ... OMG now we are a union of countries?

    • Re:Nice concept (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:09AM (#43934175) Homepage

      Clue: Hackers don't have to live in the same country where they hack (in fact they often don't...)

      Murderers, corrupt politicians wrecking the economy? Not so much.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Corruption and related business via the internet can also be done from anyplace.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        wrecking the economy? Not so much.

        Yeah, because the US company Goldman Sachs totally didn't wreck the EU economy and business sitting in one country are totally not doing business in other countries. They also totally don't hide in tax havens and never would do evil tricks to prevent the cops from catching them.

        • by Joce640k (829181)

          Clue: Europe is a union. What the summary is talking about is like people committing crimes in another state in the USA.

          Last I heard, the USA has laws to prevent people hopping state borders and going "neener, neener" from the other side.

          Similarly, these laws won't affect people who hack from tax havens, etc.

          • Last I heard, the USA has laws to prevent people hopping state borders and going "neener, neener" from the other side.

            Might want to look over State marijuana laws sometime, then.

            • by Immerman (2627577)

              Really? There are states whose law protect someone who, say, sells marijuana in a state where it is illegal and then retreats back to a state where it's been legalized? I find that hard to believe. I believe you're confusing that with the idea that you could go to a state where X is legal, do X there, then return without facing repurcussions even if X is illegal in your home state. Which is pretty much the default assumption - you don't have to worry about breaking Arizona law unless you are actually *i

      • by GNious (953874)

        I think politicians are managing to eff up economies in other countries just fine....

      • by MrL0G1C (867445)

        corrupt politicians wrecking the economy? Not so much.

        Clearly you haven't paying attention for the last 5 years.

        Dodgy mortgages in America packaged up in fancy financial instruments and then sold as low risk, ended up causing near collapse of the banking system, resulting in massive borrowing and pushing Europe into recession. Corrupt American politicians refusing to regulate the financial industry properly are the cause.

        And google Greece Cyprus Debt.

      • by durrr (1316311)

        But knowing how incompetent the lawmakers are when it comes to issues like hacking, we're going to end up with dumb ass fucking laws that make it a hacking offense to read the email of some moron that didn't log out after using a public computer.

        I'm going to send out SQL injection links to my purposefully unpatched and brokenly secured system, then put all of the fuckers in jail that click on it.

        • by Dogtanian (588974)

          we're going to end up with dumb ass fucking laws

          I thought we were talking about legislation on hacking, not buggery?

          (Hint; watch out for ambiguity in the implied hyphen. And no, it wasn't this XKCD cartoon [xkcd.com] that made me think of that, but the other way around- still partly appropriate though!)

    • Re:Nice concept (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Big Hairy Ian (1155547) on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:16AM (#43934203)
      Can we impose the same minimum cap on sentencing for banking god knows they do far more damage in a day than hackers will in their entire careers.
      • by gl4ss (559668)

        Can we impose the same minimum cap on sentencing for banking god knows they do far more damage in a day than hackers will in their entire careers.

        it's a minimum cap on what what the maximum is.
        what they use as sentences is still all the same and can be less.. that's how I understood capping the minimum.

        where I live, Finland, there's a big bunch of crimes that usually will fetch you with just a fine even though there's at least a 6 month sentence possible from them. this is pretty much because that allows the cops to do home invasions if they suspect said crime...

      • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Friday June 07, 2013 @08:26AM (#43934747) Journal

        Yes. All you have to do is to vote for politicians that will implement it.

    • It's still every country for herself. Every country passes its own legislation, every country passes different sentences; this would simply mandate that in every country, it must be at least possible to sentence a criminal specializing in the given field for this prescribed period of time (henceforth labeled a as X). It's not even remotely close to a sentencing guideline or anything like that. Logically, this is to prevent the situation in which some country says "X is too much, we'll cap it at one year top

      • Sure we do. In my ancestral home of Pennsylvania, we got a lot of them. Can't buy booze unless you purchase it from the Gov't, Certain stores only sell six packs, others only cases of beer. Our sales tax (VAT to you guys I believe) is convoluted at best - books are taxed, magazines aren't. Soap is taxed, paper towels are not. Etc, etc...

        But some laws are pretty universal in the US (with some interpretation of course), mostly to do with criminal acts that harm others. No one is getting off "easy" for rape
    • by westlake (615356)

      When we talk about debt its every country for himself. When we talk about corruption and murder is every country for himself. Talk about hacking ... OMG now we are a union of countries?

      It always surprises the geek when one of his own is expected to do hard time.

      Crimes of violence are almost always isolated events and are prosecuted locally --- as they have been for millennia. Hacking is a crime that has taken on a global dimension.

      This isn't rocket science.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      When we talk about debt its every country for himself.

      So when will Greece give all that money back?

  • Unless... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Errol backfiring (1280012) on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:34AM (#43934071) Journal
    Unless it is done by governments or influential companies, I suppose. On the other hand, no exceptions will be made for investigating journalists.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      If it's done by governments (and can be proven) it's espionage. Only it's hard to arrest hackers that are protected by their own government, living in their own country.

    • Re:Unless... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dmbasso (1052166) on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:50AM (#43934327)

      On the other hand, no exceptions will be made for investigating journalists.

      Of course, the Ministry of Love would never allow that.

      [...] face up to two years or more in prison [...] law approved by the European Parliament's civil liberties committee.

      Doesn't it seem the doublespeak is becoming more prevalent every day?

    • by mjwalshe (1680392)
      quiet right should be at least tripled for tabloid hacks and the bent public servants that facilitate them
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      On the other hand, no exceptions will be made for investigating journalists.

      That's quite a nice thing to call Fox.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It seems that because the government is powerless to stop the criminal use of hacking, they attempt this to scare people off.
    This will most likely be abused against journalists and hackers who only want companies to improve their security.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:41AM (#43934095)

    Some people suggest a breach of TOS is "hacking", like not using your real name of whatever. Or using wget to download a bunch of articles.

    This is insane, we're all computer users nowadays.

    I'd be much more delighted if this was about a MAXIMUM sentence cap!

  • Define "Hacking" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StoneyMahoney (1488261) on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:49AM (#43934117)

    The Compuworld article uses the term without revealing it's definition as stated in the EU draft law. Is this because it's loosely defined by the EU itself to act as a catch-all act in the future? That idea chills my bones.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    so from zero to infinity?

  • I wonder if European citizens realized how much of their national sovereignty was at risk when they joined the EU.

    • Re:USoE (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Luckyo (1726890) on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:10AM (#43934179)

      Why, because of clickbait lie? Read the damn story.

      Minimum sentence can be a fine, or nothing. But maximum sentence cannot be less then two years for hacking, and five years for hacking of critical infrastructure. Not to mention that European Parliament is a democratically elected legislative branch of EU, directly elected by member states' citizens. It's the most and arguably only democratic branch of EU.

      • Re:USoE (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dogtanian (588974) on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:57AM (#43934367) Homepage

        Why, because of clickbait lie? Read the damn story.

        To be fair, the summary *doesn't* actually lie.

        Even without having checked the comments, it's undeniably obvious that many Slashdotters would skim the summary, see the "two year" figure with respect to "hacking" and "sentences" and jump to the wrong conclusion. And my suspicion is that the editors knew this very well, so yeah, it's probably "clickbait" in that sense.

        But if you're paying attention to what the summary actually says, it never claims that there's a minimum two year sentence for "hacking"; it says that there's a minimum limit on the maximum sentence.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Read the topic. It clearly states "minimum sentence cap" instead of "minimum length of maximum sentence"

          • by Dogtanian (588974)

            Read the topic.

            I *did* read the topic- and the summary- which is more than most people bothered to do.

            It clearly states "minimum sentence cap" instead of "minimum length of maximum sentence"

            Yes- the "cap" referred to was a cap on the maximum length of the sentence. By requiring the cap to be at or above a certain length, they're forcing a minimum length on the maximum imposable sentence, e.g. no country can say "we'll set a cap on the *maximum* sentence for hacking at 18 months".

            Perhaps you misunderstood my intention, as I was paraphrasing what the summary said for those who had already misinterpreted the

            • by Luckyo (1726890)

              But they can set the minimum sentence to zero. Which kills your entire perversion of truth.

              • by Dogtanian (588974)

                But they can set the minimum sentence to zero.

                Er... yeah. We *know* that. No-one claimed otherwise. What's your point?

                The story had nothing to do with the minimum sentence; it had to do with the maximum possible sentence (i.e. the cap).

                Specifically, EU countries could not set the maximum possible sentence (i.e. the cap) to less than two years. Hence a "hacker" could face up to two years (or more) in prison.

                With the emphasis on the phrase "up to".

                Comprende?

                Which kills your entire perversion of truth.

                I'm not sure how you think something I never claimed "kills" what I said.

                Also, hysterica

                • Hence a "hacker" could face up to two years (or more) in prison.

                  With the emphasis on the phrase "up to".

                  How about emphasising "or more" too? Because "up to two years or more" means any number (some might say any number apart from exactly two).

                  Comprende?

                  You're from Barcelona? That explains it.

                  • by Dogtanian (588974)

                    With the emphasis on the phrase "up to".

                    How about emphasising "or more" too?

                    Because I was replying to a post in which the OP said

                    But they can set the minimum sentence to zero.

                    Well, yes. "Up to" includes zero, that was my point.

                    "up to two years or more" means any number (some might say any number apart from exactly two).

                    While this is logically correct if one takes an intentionally pedantic view of what I said, it misses the point and in fact is misleading.

                    While a cap could (in theory) be set at any arbitrary value (provided X >= 2) in legislation, for the person in court, X will be a fixed maximum possible sentence. (Which is of course the point of a cap).

                    While it may be open to interpretation, the way you phrase

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          I suppose the summary doesn't actually lie because it's incoherent.

          • by Dogtanian (588974)

            I suppose the summary doesn't actually lie because it's incoherent.

            The summary is perfectly clear and comprehensible if you stop and read what it actually says. The problem is that most people didn't, they skimmed it and came to the wrong conclusion based on a kneejerk response.

      • Re:USoE (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sockatume (732728) on Friday June 07, 2013 @08:27AM (#43934751)

        So it's a minimum maximum sentence?

      • by drsquare (530038)

        What's democratic about the EU telling sovereign nations that they have to send people to prison, even when they don't want to?

        The sooner we're out of this totalitarian institution the better. They can't even run a fucking currency properly and they're telling nations how to run their justice systems? Absurd.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Kindly quote where it says that. Again, according to the source (instead of sensationalist lie used in the topic) there is no mandatory minimum sentence. A nation state may adapt a minimum sentence of no punishment.

          I'm guessing you're the standard anti-EU nutjob that happily swallows whatever lies are being fed to him without even bothering to look at the source to see that he's being told a bold faced lie.

    • No, we didn't know. Originally we signed up to EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement), which morphed into the EEC (European Economic Community), then into the EC (European Community) in 1993, and in 2009 into the EU (as a political entity) officially (with the Lisbon Treaty).

      That is the main beef in the UK. The original referendum only asked if they wanted to join EFTA, and free trade with Europe was a good idea. Since then everything else was essentially scope creep, until we ended up with the monstrosity th

      • by Anonymous Coward

        No, we didn't know. Originally we signed up to EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement), which morphed into the EEC (European Economic Community), then into the EC (European Community) in 1993, and in 2009 into the EU (as a political entity) officially (with the Lisbon Treaty).

        Wrong. The EFTA was a competing organization to the EEC. However the EFTA wasn't the hoped success, and thus several countries decided to leave it and join the EC instead (at that time, the EEC had already changed to the EC). However the

        • Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the information. I was under the impression that EFTA was the precursor to the EEC.

          Still, AFAIK the UK only ever had a referendum on joining EFTA, so my point still stands w.r.t. on not having a democratic choice in the matter.

      • by Cenan (1892902)

        The reason you don't get much say in it is because most of your voters are too fucking dumb/lazy to actually produce an informed opinion on the subject. All they see is oh no, we lost some of our sovereignty, we're less British now. You just know that whenever the subject of EU comes up, right wing fanatics are going to jump on it and declare it a war on eggs & bacon, pubs and football, because national pride buys votes. So moderate politicians keep everything they can out of the referendums, because th

        • by theM_xl (760570)

          Living in the Netherlands, I did see the sheer idiocy of propaganda the last time they were willing to let us say anything about the EU. Whenever said EU is trying to increase its power - again - we're blitzed with a wide variety of warnings that if we don't do this, the sky will fall on us (or whatever the economic or political equivalent is at the time).

          We could make it work so the bombs don't start flying again by NOT trying the exact same thing that has set it off every time before, namely trying to un

          • by Cenan (1892902)

            There is a difference in the approach to the unification "under one rule" - namely the lack of bombs dropping. I guess it basically comes down to whether you think sovereignty is worth holding on to at all costs, or not. I honestly don't see the benefit of isolation compared to the benefit of accepting, that in order to work together better, we need to not isolate ourselves.

            You're right though, there is a disturbing lack of rational discussion about this. It is always either do or die.

        • Re:USoE (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Ogi_UnixNut (916982) on Friday June 07, 2013 @07:42AM (#43934533) Homepage

          The reason you don't get much say in it is because most of your voters are too fucking dumb/lazy to actually produce an informed opinion on the subject. All they see is oh no, we lost some of our sovereignty, we're less British now. You just know that whenever the subject of EU comes up, right wing fanatics are going to jump on it and declare it a war on eggs & bacon, pubs and football, because national pride buys votes. So moderate politicians keep everything they can out of the referendums, because they know a bunch of hacks are going to screw it all up, for no other reason than personal gain - hey look at me, I oppose this, vote for me so I can continue my fat cat lifestyle.

          Wow, what a bitter tirade! In one fell swoop you've shown exactly the problem with the EU and its supporters. You don't want democracy, you don't want people to choose, you want to decide what is good for them, and if they resist, or don't like it, then they are stupid/lazy/far-right-nuts. Democracy means giving people the right to choose, and includes letting them choose the "wrong" option.
          You'll be winning hearts and minds with that attitude, I'll tell you.

          And if you want to see a fat-cat lifestyle, try and peer into the live of an European Commissioner. At least the non-governmental fat cats got hold of the money themselves, rather than using my tax money to fund their lifestyles.

          There is no rational discussion of "will this be good for us and the people around us", it's all just "what do I get?". If you started asking questions like "how can we make this work, so that in 50 years the bombs don't start flying again"

          Why on earth would bombs start flying again? Even if the EU was dissolved tomorrow, I don't see why suddenly war would break out. I mean, people have been living together for a while now in peace, intermarriages, etc... Shengen and free trade did more to build peace than any other part of the EU.
          I'd argue that war is more likely if the EU is being kept together by force. Forcing things together will work for a while, but increases the chance that when it does collapse, it will do so in a very bloody way.

          They're doing pretty much the same thing in Denmark, arguing tooth and nail that this or that issue does not warrant asking the people, for the very reasons I stated above. They're not going to come out and say it, but you don't need many brain cells to figure it out. Especially not if you've been around for the last couple of referendums on EU, and seen the sheer idiocy of propaganda shoveled onto voters.

          Again, politicians showing complete disregard for democracy. "The masses aren't voting for my ideas, they must be stupid/brainwashed/fascists, therefore I must not ask them". That will do nothing but breed resentment, regardless of whether what the politicians are doing is better for them in the long term.

          • by Cenan (1892902)

            Wow, what a bitter tirade! In one fell swoop you've shown exactly the problem with the EU and its supporters. You don't want democracy, you don't want people to choose, you want to decide what is good for them, and if they resist, or don't like it, then they are stupid/lazy/far-right-nuts. Democracy means giving people the right to choose, and includes letting them choose the "wrong" option.

            I guess I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to extremist agendas that has nothing to do with the actual issues at hand. I'm fed up with talk of the dangerous brown people invading, I'm sick of listening to idiots mouth off about things they deep down have no fucking clue about. I'm sick of people forming their opinions from two lines of text on a billboard, or a 5 second spot on whatever news channel reenforces your viewpoint. Generally, I'm sick of uninformed neanderthals setting the agenda. So yeah, I

            • I guess I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to extremist agendas that has nothing to do with the actual issues at hand. I'm fed up with talk of the dangerous brown people invading, I'm sick of listening to idiots mouth off about things they deep down have no fucking clue about. I'm sick of people forming their opinions from two lines of text on a billboard, or a 5 second spot on whatever news channel reenforces your viewpoint. Generally, I'm sick of uninformed neanderthals setting the agenda. So yeah, I do agree that democracy is the only real way of government, I just wish my fellow voters would use more than 2 seconds making up their minds.

              This is a tricky one. I originally hail from a communist country. Our communists had the same opinion, and opened the borders to massive immigration of people (brown or otherwise). Most integrated well (especially Chinese, East Europeans and Africans), however some didn't. Instead they kept to themselves, had multiple wives, and generally bred like crazy. ~50 years down the line they became a demographic majority, and when communism collapsed and the state was weak, they took advantage and kicked off a war

              • by Cenan (1892902)

                So there is some truth to the "Dangerous foreign people invading", much as I hate to say it. Just that the dangers may not be known for 50+ years. Some groups are happy to integrate and will do so. Others will not. Maybe if we managed to eliminate religion from the equation, even they would be able to, but religion has been with us for thousands of years, I can't think of a way of eliminating it (hell, even the communists couldn't stamp it out, and they were brutally athiest).

                As for the rest you said, I agree with you completely. However short of banning television, I can't think of a way of stopping it. That invention has done more to damage critical thinking of an individual than anything else I can think of.

                An angle I had not fully considered, so thank you for providing a new point of view. I think the problems you descibe have very little to do with the fact that people immigrated to your country. They we invited in and left to their own devices, that is a failure of integration not of "brown people" or any other kind of people. My objection is the projection that anyone not like us must be breeding like rabbits and are to be shunned/shot/denied entrance - in order to avoid what you describe, we shun the worl

                • An angle I had not fully considered, so thank you for providing a new point of view.

                  You're very welcome, it is always nice to consider different points of vew. Far too many people are stuck in their narrow minded views, so it is nice to find people with open minds to discuss with :)

                  I think the problems you descibe have very little to do with the fact that people immigrated to your country. They we invited in and left to their own devices, that is a failure of integration not of "brown people" or any other kind of people.

                  Well, I wouldn't go that far. We tried very hard to integrate them, so much time, effort and money went into trying to integrate them that the rest of the country was complaining about the costs of it all (it was driving them to ruin), but they didn't want to integrate. Short of forcing them to integrate at gun

                  • by Cenan (1892902)

                    As I said, lots of other races came, settled and integrated very well in the country, a lot of them of far different skin colour than us natives, with little to no problems at all. So it isn't that we didn't try, it is just that for integration to work, both parties must be willing to work for it, like in any relationship really (from two people, onwards to societies).

                    I find it hard to believe that a segment of a population over a 50 year period has the ability to act in a coordinated manner, as you describe. I think you might be a little bit biased by your experiences. That is of course the point of experience, but I'm concerned that it won't translate very well. In any case, I wasn't talking about immigration when I mentioned brown people, I was poking at the right wing slackjaws who seem to pull out the fear of anyone different as an argument to why we need to isolate

                    • I find it hard to believe that a segment of a population over a 50 year period has the ability to act in a coordinated manner, as you describe.

                      You don't need the entire segment to co-ordinate for this to work, just the power-hungry minority at the top. In fact I'm pretty sure most of the population didn't care either way, as long as they could live in peace and prosper. For example, the same can be said for Syria. I really doubt that the majority want a civil war, or want to split the country up, etc... but you only need well armed minorities (usually backed by foreign proxies) at the top to fight and the rest either follows, runs away or gets cau

            • by TheP4st (1164315)

              Hell, I bet wars have been started over a girl or a spilled beer.

              Being a longtime resident of Belgium I'd say that spilled beer is a perfectly legit reason for starting a war, unless by beer you mean that discolored water that is referred to as beer in the US.

              • That's assuming you lot are sober enough to march in the right direction ;-)

                Loved Belgium myself, the museums, waffles and beer (wow, especially the beer) were heavenly. I just can't see how anyone is ever sober enough to actually do what they have to, which might explain a lot about the nature of EU functioning :-P

              • by Cenan (1892902)

                I've never been the the US to drink their legendary warm piss! I live in Denmark - we know how to make beer, well some of us, I personally have no clue. Drink it I do know how to do. I guess I could see the argument that would lead to a war based on spilled beer, so I retract that comment.

                Never been to Belgium, myself and a couple of co-workers took a road trip south but we accidently went straight to Amsterdam (when it was still legal for "foreigners" to smoke in their coffee shops), after that we didn't h

          • by EzInKy (115248)


            Why on earth would bombs start flying again? Even if the EU was dissolved tomorrow, I don't see why suddenly war would break out. I mean, people have been living together for a while now in peace, intermarriages, etc... Shengen and free trade did more to build peace than any other part of the EU.
            I'd argue that war is more likely if the EU is being kept together by force. Forcing things together will work for a while, but increases the chance that when it does collapse, it will do so in a very bloody way.

            Up

            • Up until I read that last part I was all set to argue against your post,

              Oh come now, debates are good! :)

              but we have our Civil War that serves as an example of the bloodletting that can occur when trying to forceably preserve a union of desperate states.

              Trust me I know, my country of origin went through a rather bloody civil war, difference is in the US the unionists won, there the confederates did.

              Still, it doesn't take much to get people at each others throats. All it takes is one nation that feels it needs more land, more resources, or simply more "living space" to start the shit hitting the fan.

              The European solution to this was free trade and free movement of people. Allows the whole thing to grow (and shrink) organically. Based on your logic, a nation will go to war when its demand for resources cannot be met any other way (war itself is very resource intensive, and only a good idea if the winnings are greater than the

          • by TheP4st (1164315)
            And if you want to see a fat-cat lifestyle, try and peer into the liver of an European Commissioner.
            TFTFY ;-)
    • Nobody likes democracy unless it's on their side. The enlightened masses who see things your way are a boon, the dazed luddites who dare to disagree a real drag. Giving up some sovereignty can be quite handy to get things the way you want them without all those ignorant plebes standing in the way. Heck, the new arrangement might be quite popular---there's no reason everybody can't get something out of the deal. Of course, the problem with having a government of governments of governments is that, the fa

    • by Cenan (1892902)

      It is laughable to talk of sovereignty with respect to Europe. The fact that the EU member countries surrendered a part of their sovereignty is what has secured the relatively peaceful period in the continent's history (and the cause for awarding the EU with the goddamn Nobel Peace Prize). The borders in the continent have had a habit of changing every 50 years, some even less. Most of the borders in Eastern Europe are just shy of 20 years old (redrawn from before the Soviet Union decided it needed a buffer

      • The fact that the EU member countries surrendered a part of their sovereignty is what has secured the relatively peaceful period in the continent's history

        The number of wars it had was lower than the control group (same countries but which didn't have the EU) by how much? What significance level does that come out as?

    • We DID. There was a referendum and the outcome was NO. That did not stop our corrupt politicians though.
    • by manu0601 (2221348)

      I did not, but now I realize. But this is not just national sovereignty, this is people sovereignty, which means democracy in the end.

      Each time the EU moves sovereignty from member state to the Union, people sovereignty lost at member state level is never re-created at the Union level. We elect a european parliament that cannot propose directives, cannot have the last word in legislative process (except for killing a directive), and does not vote budget

      EU political project is to destroy democracy, this is o

  • by mybeat (1516477) on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:59AM (#43934141) Homepage
    How about all EU countries share the minimum wage, minimum pension and so on? It's a joke that some EU countries have minimum wage of 280~~ euros when cost of living is not that far off from other countries where minimum wage is around 1000 euros. Just look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage [wikipedia.org], what a joke.
    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      Finland has no minimum wage. At all. We're still pretty high up, and our poverty rates are minimal.

      Of course that is due to the fact that de facto minimal wage is agreed in negotiations between unions and union of employers for each industry typically on yearly basis among other things.

    • by ledow (319597)

      Almost all the countries below the half-way-mark on that table are the former Russian states or their immediate neighbours. It's hardly surprising.

      And, despite being in the EU, all these places have their own economies. If you force a minimum wage of the UK on, say, Armenia, then employers will have to pay 26 times more on the minimum wage than they do now. In case you don't know, that would basically mean about 20 times more unemployed as a consequence.

      There is nothing stopping those people migrating to

    • by Xest (935314)

      I don't really understand the problem, I compared to this chart of average wages here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_net_average_wage [wikipedia.org]

      If we were to standardise the minimum wage across Europe based on the nations with the highest wage then the minimum wage would be many times higher than the average wage in some of these countries. If we standardise on the lowest wage then people on minimum wage in say the UK would be forced into abject poverty.

      The minimum wage seems fairly

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The problem is we don't invest in securing the infrastructure and and expect technology to lower costs. At the same time these systems are vulnerable to 'hackers' they are vulnerable to attack by foreign states. It's stupid to arrest people who had they been operating from another part of the world would not have been arrested or otherwise gotten off nearly scott free. It's better that you use them to help fix your own infrastructure to the attacks can't be easily repeated.

    • At the same time these systems are vulnerable to 'hackers' they are vulnerable to attack by foreign states.

      Aside from the criminal side of the argument about protecting thyself, this point here did make me pause for consideration - my government protects me from attack by foreign states in many other ways, why aren't they protected me from attack across the internet as well?

      The British Government spends billions a year maintaining a QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) fleet of aircraft, primed to intercept any foreign aircraft that happens to skirt our shores, it maintains a coastal fleet primed to intercept any foreign

  • a floor, not a cap (Score:4, Informative)

    by stenvar (2789879) on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:21AM (#43934227)

    That's a sentencing floor, not a sentencing cap. A cap would limit the maximum sentencing possible.

  • I fear that this could/will be used to clamp down on whitehatting/fair disclosure, perhaps simply just to avoid Govt. red faces, just as much as a deterrence/punishment for the bad guys.

    But when are we going to get something like SOX for critical systems designers and operators?
    "The X-rays on critical welds for your nuclear plant were faked; 5 years"
    "The SCADA system for your nuclear plant is exposed to the internet; 2 years".
    "You have an unpatched known vulnerability on your database which led to personal,

  • by schnipschnap (739127) on Friday June 07, 2013 @07:10AM (#43934411)

    Defacing a website: 2 years in prison
    Defacing a building: kids will be kids

  • They are not making mandatory sentences.

    They are saying, that the MAXIMUM sentences a country can give for hacking, must be at least 2 years.

  • "Hackers would face up to two years or more in prison [...]"

    They are facing between zero and infinite years in prison?

  • That's an extremely informative statement.

    http://xkcd.com/870/ [xkcd.com]

  • So.. gain "unauthorized access" on a publicly available terminal/website/kiosk/library PC due to poor security and you get a MINIMUM 2 years in prison. This would include clicking Google results that take you into an "unauthorized" section of someone's public-facing website as we've seen time and time again.

    But intentionally infect thousands of machines with damaging, keylogging, DDOS bots and you get a MAXIMUM 3 years?
    • by black3d (1648913)
      OK scratch that.. I too misunderstood the wording surrounding the minimum maximum...

      But I still think 3 years is an insane maximum for creating botnets. That means not only is it just more lucrative than robbing a bank, but the maximum is half the minimum for armed robbery. Way to encourage more online crime?
  • If only term "hacking" wouldn't be so easy to interpret however you want to. Oh you mistyped your username and our system crashed - haxor! Oh, you discovered a vulnerability in our system, even though you didnt take advantage of it - haxor! Oh your grandmom axidentally connected to neighbours open wifi - haxor! To the prison with the lot of you!
  • On what treaty is this based? I though criminal law was a member state competence. When did it change?
  • People should never interfere with another's computer or control it without explicit permission any more than they should have non-consensual sexual intercourse with that person. Violating someone's mind-space should be a crime, and how one is allowed to influence the mind of another should be tightly regulated. If you do not give me consent to play on your computer, it should be a crime to do so. If you give me certain bounds within which to play, it should be criminal to break those boun

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...