I read with interest this article (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-944057.html?tag=fd_top ) where the US government is authorising life imprisonment for hackers; "A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb".

When we're told that hacking can cause the death of thousands of people in a terrorist attack, this sentence seems reasonable. But where will the line be drawn? Will your bedroom security-hole-exposer be subject to the same consequences?

And then, does hacking really come in as so much more serious a crime as rape, child abuse or death through drink driving (all of which have much shorter sentences but can have equally long-term consequences for the victims)?

Is this law protecting big business, or am I being cynical and these priorities are well in order? Maybe the view on hacking is right and these other crimes need to be re-prioritised?

These things have never made any sense. There seam to be too many things to take into account to get a suitable method of comparison. Sometimes things are just plain stupid.

To give you an example, you often hear of people that have been repeatedly caught in burglaries, getting away without a prison term and then you find someone being given a a prison sentence for collecting golf balls off a lake. I mean the police actively sought a prosecution even though the golf club owners wern't interested.

As a general rule, anything that is likely to cause the gov't a hard time is likely to get a harsh sentence.

Zuber

It isn't just the US who are redefining the role of the hacker. It has already happened here, on the 19th Feb 2001 in fact. That was when the Terrorism Act 2000 became law, and within it was a broadening of the definition of terrorist organizations compared to the ones included in the 1973 Prevention of Terrorism Act - the new law includes ‘cyber-terrorists’ for the first time. This has been achieved by adding to the list of things that define a terrorist someone who attempts to, or actually does, seriously interfere with or disrupt an electronic system.

There are other criteria involved, obviously, such as acting to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. All of which makes the ‘hacktivist’ rather than the hacker per se into a terrorist in the eyes of the law.

I suspect that we will be seeing the Terrorist Act 2000 used at some time soon to 'protect' us from the evil threat to the fabric of society (yeah right) that is the website home page defacer.

McDonalds can sleep easier no doubt, but I can't really see how such a law is going to help prevent terrorism in the truest sense of the word. I am not totally naive, of course, and fully appreciate the concept of mis-information dissemination as part of a terror campaign. However, as usual the law (or the Government if you prefer - these days they are pretty interchangeable) tends to go for the broad broom approach and sweeps up plenty of people around the periphery of the problem as well as the problem itself...

Whoops ;) that nearly turned into a rant.