A Labour MP is attempting to raise the maximum sentences that can be handed down on UK citizens who are convicted of hacking and DoS attacks.
Tom Harris, MP for Glasgow South, introduced a bill on Tuesday to update the Computer Misuse Act. Harris wants the maximum sentence for accessing data without authorisation increase from six months to two years, and the maximum sentence for modifying data without authorisation lifted to 10 years from five at present.
"By increasing the tariff on these crimes, the House would be sending a message to the courts and the public prosecution service that these crimes must be taken seriously and that, where appropriate, custodial sentences must be applied," Harris told Parliament.
"It is regularly claimed that the cost of cleaning up virus or worm attacks runs into billions of pounds. The current level of sentences does not reflect the seriousness of such offences," he added.
Harris's bill would also create a specific offence of launching a denial-of-service attack. As it stands, the CMA does not explicitly outlaw the practice of bombarding Web servers with large amounts of traffic to take them offline.
The CMA was introduced in 1990, and is now widely seen as lacking the necessary powers to deal with today's cybercriminals. The government has committed itself to updating the CMA, but so far has failed to produce any definite proposals.
Harris's bill is unlikely to become law, although it has won the support of other MPs, including the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) which has been lobbying the government to give the CMS sharper teeth.
"We hope that the Government adopts the measures proposed in the Bill as a matter of urgency, reflecting the significant threat that cybercrime poses to the UK," said Derek Wyatt MP, joint chair of APIG.
Talkback
The important aspect to be kept in mind.
The punishment is a means of social control. It is given to the offenders with the aim to check them from committing crimes again. It deters not only the actual offenders but also others from doing the same kind of acts in future. All punishments take place within a society’s ordinary legal and penal systems. In the past, several reasons have been given for the justification of punishment. One of these reasons is retributive. Another reason, historically associated with utilitarianism, is that punishment serve to deter others from offending i.e., deterrence. A third reason is partly that punishment or a practice of treatment, secures the fewer offences will be committed in the future, but not through deterrence. This could be as reformative aspect, recommending the moral regeneration of individuals as an end itself and also a means to the prevention of crime. These three reasons, each with variants and complexities, have been known as theories of the justification of punishment.
There cannot be a uniform application of law to all individuals. This is so because the criminal law sometimes has to adhere to the concept of “Individualisation”. That means individualisation of punishment and treatment. A juvenile cannot be equated with a hard core and habitual criminal. Similarly, the act of “hacking” may be committed for both the purposes of “fun only” and for obtaining “illegal gain”. The former is not as rigorously punishable as the latter because the later involve the “culpable intention” as well. Thus, unless the law of UK makes the accused “Strictly liable”, the “mens rea” aspect will keep on playing its individualistic treatment role.
The present opinion of severe punishment is pointing towards the deterrent aspect of the criminology that requires an “individualist treatment” in the hands of the courts applying the proposed law.
This Bill is all about symptom fighting. No solutions, just responses. How clueless could one be. Enough said.