Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

edgeforpeace

Free Assange

Recommended Posts

I've never read as much biased shite in my 10 years on U2.com. Well done.
Yes...tis all unquestionably way, way up there on the list mummy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never read as much biased shite in my 10 years on U2.com. Well done.

Yes, I am biased against criminals.  Hacking is  crime.

I believe in civil society and the rule of law.  And both are very tenuous and easily lost.

 In a democracy, if you do not like a law, you have the right to petition, lobby, organize and elect representatives to change that law.  To resort to crime--and hacking is a crime--puts one squarely in the realm of places that do not have civil societies or the rule of law at all.  Would you prefer things to resemble the state of affairs as they stand right now in Egypt or in dozens and dozens of other places?  Perhaps the malcontents and tween members of the  Anonymous hackers--and those who find common cause with them-- would feel more at home on the streets of Cairo where public mobs are burning government buildings and police are shooting protesters.   By all means, if this is the case, then one should move along.  I think nobody will stop you.

Hacking is a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never read as much biased shite in my 10 years on U2.com. Well done.

Yes, I am biased against criminals.  Hacking is  crime.

I believe in civil society and the rule of law.  And both are very tenuous and easily lost.

 In a democracy, if you do not like a law, you have the right to petition, lobby, organize and elect representatives to change that law.  To resort to crime--and hacking is a crime--puts one squarely in the realm of places that do not have civil societies or the rule of law at all.  Would you prefer things to resemble the state of affairs as they stand right now in Egypt or in dozens and dozens of other places?  Perhaps the malcontents and tween members of the  Anonymous hackers--and those who find common cause with them-- would feel more at home on the streets of Cairo where public mobs are burning government buildings and police are shooting protesters.   By all means, if this is the case, then one should move along.  I think nobody will stop you.

Hacking is a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never read as much biased shite in my 10 years on U2.com. Well done.

Yes, I am biased against criminals.  Hacking is  crime.

I believe in civil society and the rule of law.  And both are very tenuous and easily lost.

 In a democracy, if you do not like a law, you have the right to petition, lobby, organize and elect representatives to change that law.  To resort to crime--and hacking is a crime--puts one squarely in the realm of places that do not have civil societies or the rule of law at all.  Would you prefer things to resemble the state of affairs as they stand right now in Egypt or in dozens and dozens of other places?  Perhaps the malcontents and tween members of the  Anonymous hackers--and those who find common cause with them-- would feel more at home on the streets of Cairo where public mobs are burning government buildings and police are shooting protesters.   By all means, if this is the case, then one should move along.  I think nobody will stop you.

Hacking is a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you, sia...

 

count me in...

 

I am biased too.

 

against criminals.

 

thanks mom!

 

I know right from wrong thanks to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, yeah, and thanks mom for teaching me how to read...

 

i love to read and use my mind.....

 

and thanks mom for teaching me not to just jump on the bandwagon, but to get all the facts first before i make a decision about a matter....

 

just so basic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange does not deserve freedom. He is not a hero, he is a self-aggrandising idiot who is very far up himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='security_in_anonymity wrote:


mummy']I've never read as much biased shite in my 10 years on U2.com. Well done.

Yes, I am biased against criminals.  Hacking is  crime.

I believe in civil society and the rule of law.  And both are very tenuous and easily lost.

 In a democracy, if you do not like a law, you have the right to petition, lobby, organize and elect representatives to change that law.  To resort to crime--and hacking is a crime--puts one squarely in the realm of places that do not have civil societies or the rule of law at all.  Would you prefer things to resemble the state of affairs as they stand right now in Egypt or in dozens and dozens of other places?  Perhaps the malcontents and tween members of the  Anonymous hackers--and those who find common cause with them-- would feel more at home on the streets of Cairo where public mobs are burning government buildings and police are shooting protesters.   By all means, if this is the case, then one should move along.  I think nobody will stop you.

Hacking is a crime.
In what year did you first get online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange does not deserve freedom. He is not a hero, he is a self-aggrandising idiot who is very far up himself.
What kind of reasoning is that?  If Assange doesn't deserve freedom because he is a self-aggrandising idiot, then Bono also doesn't deserve freedom...because that musician is so far up his own arse it's amazing he can shit at all! tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIA I may not KNOW everthing about online safety but it's better to be safe than sorry in my book and I did get hacked once and it was probbably someone that knew me lol but still it happend and it was a trojan but the name I forget but basically it ment that the person on the other end could take over the computer this was in the 90's though when I first got the internet!

 

but whatever just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Computer hacking is broadly defined as intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access. Various state and federal laws govern computer hacking.

The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides in part as follows:

  • 1. "(a) Whoever--
  1. having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
  2. intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
    1. information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
    2. information from any department or agency of the United States; or
    3. information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

    4. intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
    5. knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
      1. knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
      2. intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
      3. intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;

      4. knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

        (a)trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, educational institution, financial institution, government entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection © of this section. (B) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection © of this section. © The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (B) of this section is--

        1. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
        2. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

          (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)©, or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

          1. the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
          2. the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
          3. the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000;

            (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), if--

            © a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

            (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), (a)(5)©, or (a)(7)of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and [former paragraph (4) stricken effective Oct. 11, 1996].

            The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section. Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General."






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Computer hacking is broadly defined as intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access. Various state and federal laws govern computer hacking.

The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides in part as follows:

  • 1. "(a) Whoever--
  1. having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
  2. intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
    1. information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
    2. information from any department or agency of the United States; or
    3. information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

    4. intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
    5. knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
      1. knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
      2. intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
      3. intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;

      4. knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

        (a)trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, educational institution, financial institution, government entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection © of this section. (B) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection © of this section. © The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (B) of this section is--

        1. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
        2. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

          (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)©, or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

          1. the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
          2. the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
          3. the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000;

            (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), if--

            © a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

            (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), (a)(5)©, or (a)(7)of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and [former paragraph (4) stricken effective Oct. 11, 1996].

            The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section. Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General."






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Computer hacking is broadly defined as intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access. Various state and federal laws govern computer hacking.

The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides in part as follows:

  • 1. "(a) Whoever--
  1. having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
  2. intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
    1. information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
    2. information from any department or agency of the United States; or
    3. information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

    4. intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
    5. knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
      1. knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
      2. intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
      3. intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;

      4. knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

        (a)trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, educational institution, financial institution, government entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection © of this section. (B) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection © of this section. © The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (B) of this section is--

        1. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
        2. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

          (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)©, or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

          1. the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
          2. the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
          3. the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000;

            (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), if--

            © a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

            (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), (a)(5)©, or (a)(7)of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and [former paragraph (4) stricken effective Oct. 11, 1996].

            The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section. Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General."






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued....

Reporting Computer Hacking, Fraud and Other Internet-Related Crime

The primary federal law enforcement agencies that investigate domestic crime on the Internet include: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , theUnited States Postal Inspection Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) . Each of these agencies has offices conveniently located in every state to which crimes may be reported. Contact information regarding these local offices may be found in local telephone directories. In general, federal crime may be reported to the local office of an appropriate law enforcement agency by a telephone call and by requesting the "Duty Complaint Agent."

 

Each law enforcement agency also has a headquarters (HQ) in Washington, D.C., which has agents who specialize in particular areas. For example, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service both have headquarters-based specialists in computer intrusion (i.e., computer hacker) cases.

 

To determine some of the federal investigative law enforcement agencies that may be appropriate for reporting certain kinds of crime, please refer to the following table:

Type of Crime
Appropriate federal investigative law enforcement agencies
Computer intrusion (i.e. hacking)

Password trafficking 

Counterfeiting of currency 

Child Pornography or Exploitation 

Child Exploitation and Internet Fraud matters that have a mail nexus

Internet fraud and SPAM

Internet harassment

Internet bomb threats

Trafficking in explosive or incendiary devices or firearms over the Internet

Other Cybercrime Reporting Resources

  • The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

    The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C).  IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local level, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes.

  • Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Coordinating Center: (202) 282-9201 (report incidents relating to national security and infrastructure issues)
  • U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S. CERT) (online reporting for technicians)
  • National Association of Attorney General's Computer Crime Point of Contact List (all state-related cyber questions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued....

Reporting Computer Hacking, Fraud and Other Internet-Related Crime

The primary federal law enforcement agencies that investigate domestic crime on the Internet include: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , theUnited States Postal Inspection Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) . Each of these agencies has offices conveniently located in every state to which crimes may be reported. Contact information regarding these local offices may be found in local telephone directories. In general, federal crime may be reported to the local office of an appropriate law enforcement agency by a telephone call and by requesting the "Duty Complaint Agent."

 

Each law enforcement agency also has a headquarters (HQ) in Washington, D.C., which has agents who specialize in particular areas. For example, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service both have headquarters-based specialists in computer intrusion (i.e., computer hacker) cases.

 

To determine some of the federal investigative law enforcement agencies that may be appropriate for reporting certain kinds of crime, please refer to the following table:

Type of Crime
Appropriate federal investigative law enforcement agencies
Computer intrusion (i.e. hacking)

Password trafficking 

Counterfeiting of currency 

Child Pornography or Exploitation 

Child Exploitation and Internet Fraud matters that have a mail nexus

Internet fraud and SPAM

Internet harassment

Internet bomb threats

Trafficking in explosive or incendiary devices or firearms over the Internet

Other Cybercrime Reporting Resources

  • The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

    The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C).  IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local level, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes.

  • Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Coordinating Center: (202) 282-9201 (report incidents relating to national security and infrastructure issues)
  • U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S. CERT) (online reporting for technicians)
  • National Association of Attorney General's Computer Crime Point of Contact List (all state-related cyber questions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued....

Reporting Computer Hacking, Fraud and Other Internet-Related Crime

The primary federal law enforcement agencies that investigate domestic crime on the Internet include: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , theUnited States Postal Inspection Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) . Each of these agencies has offices conveniently located in every state to which crimes may be reported. Contact information regarding these local offices may be found in local telephone directories. In general, federal crime may be reported to the local office of an appropriate law enforcement agency by a telephone call and by requesting the "Duty Complaint Agent."

 

Each law enforcement agency also has a headquarters (HQ) in Washington, D.C., which has agents who specialize in particular areas. For example, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service both have headquarters-based specialists in computer intrusion (i.e., computer hacker) cases.

 

To determine some of the federal investigative law enforcement agencies that may be appropriate for reporting certain kinds of crime, please refer to the following table:

Type of Crime
Appropriate federal investigative law enforcement agencies
Computer intrusion (i.e. hacking)

Password trafficking 

Counterfeiting of currency 

Child Pornography or Exploitation 

Child Exploitation and Internet Fraud matters that have a mail nexus

Internet fraud and SPAM

Internet harassment

Internet bomb threats

Trafficking in explosive or incendiary devices or firearms over the Internet

Other Cybercrime Reporting Resources

  • The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

    The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C).  IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local level, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes.

  • Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Coordinating Center: (202) 282-9201 (report incidents relating to national security and infrastructure issues)
  • U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S. CERT) (online reporting for technicians)
  • National Association of Attorney General's Computer Crime Point of Contact List (all state-related cyber questions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok if you live in the USA :)

 

I phoned my local police station about being hacked

 

and they knew nothing

 

i live in the uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claire, you can conduct your own research into your country's laws; there is no reason for me to do this for you.  But I do offer this little piece, which was passed in the UK nearly a decade ago:

UK law makes hacking an act of terrorism

 

 

The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on Monday of this week in the UK. It replaces existing anti-terrorism legislation and for the first time makes the threat or use of computer hacking a potential act of terrorism.

The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force this week in the UK on 19th February. It replaces existing anti-terrorism legislation and for the first time makes the threat or use of computer hacking a potential act of terrorism.

Not all acts of hacking will amount to terrorism. Under the Act, the use or threat of an action “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system†will be a terrorist action only if it is both –

 

Designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

 

Made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

 

The definition is wide enough to cover "traditional" hacking where data on a system is corrupted and also denial of service attacks which have become an increasing problem in recent years. These are attacks by individuals who flood a web server with false and untraceable requests for information, overwhelming the system and ultimately crashing it.

 

However, the Act does not introduce a new offence of terrorism and does not lay down any penalties for such hacking actions. The Act does give additional powers to the police in dealing with terrorist acts, but hackers would still be prosecuted under existing laws.

 

The main anti-hacking laws of the UK are contained in the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but the wording of that Act is such that it could be difficult to use it to prosecute someone for a denial of service attack. Instead, in England, a denial of service attack might be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act; in Scotland, such an attack could be prosecuted as malicious mischief.

 

Penalties are provided for being connected with a proscribed organisation. The Act lists these and others can be added by the Secretary of State.

 

Membership or support of such an organisation can lead to a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine. Even wearing an item of clothing or carrying an article relating indicating allegiance to such an organisation can lead to six months in jail.

 

The full text of the Act can be found at

http://www.legislation.hm...s/acts2000/20000011.htm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claire, you can conduct your own research into your country's laws; there is no reason for me to do this for you.  But I do offer this little piece, which was passed in the UK nearly a decade ago:

UK law makes hacking an act of terrorism

 

 

The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on Monday of this week in the UK. It replaces existing anti-terrorism legislation and for the first time makes the threat or use of computer hacking a potential act of terrorism.

The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force this week in the UK on 19th February. It replaces existing anti-terrorism legislation and for the first time makes the threat or use of computer hacking a potential act of terrorism.

Not all acts of hacking will amount to terrorism. Under the Act, the use or threat of an action “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system†will be a terrorist action only if it is both –

 

Designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

 

Made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

 

The definition is wide enough to cover "traditional" hacking where data on a system is corrupted and also denial of service attacks which have become an increasing problem in recent years. These are attacks by individuals who flood a web server with false and untraceable requests for information, overwhelming the system and ultimately crashing it.

 

However, the Act does not introduce a new offence of terrorism and does not lay down any penalties for such hacking actions. The Act does give additional powers to the police in dealing with terrorist acts, but hackers would still be prosecuted under existing laws.

 

The main anti-hacking laws of the UK are contained in the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but the wording of that Act is such that it could be difficult to use it to prosecute someone for a denial of service attack. Instead, in England, a denial of service attack might be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act; in Scotland, such an attack could be prosecuted as malicious mischief.

 

Penalties are provided for being connected with a proscribed organisation. The Act lists these and others can be added by the Secretary of State.

 

Membership or support of such an organisation can lead to a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine. Even wearing an item of clothing or carrying an article relating indicating allegiance to such an organisation can lead to six months in jail.

 

The full text of the Act can be found at

http://www.legislation.hm...s/acts2000/20000011.htm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claire, you can conduct your own research into your country's laws; there is no reason for me to do this for you.  But I do offer this little piece, which was passed in the UK nearly a decade ago:

UK law makes hacking an act of terrorism

 

 

The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on Monday of this week in the UK. It replaces existing anti-terrorism legislation and for the first time makes the threat or use of computer hacking a potential act of terrorism.

The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force this week in the UK on 19th February. It replaces existing anti-terrorism legislation and for the first time makes the threat or use of computer hacking a potential act of terrorism.

Not all acts of hacking will amount to terrorism. Under the Act, the use or threat of an action “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system†will be a terrorist action only if it is both –

 

Designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

 

Made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

 

The definition is wide enough to cover "traditional" hacking where data on a system is corrupted and also denial of service attacks which have become an increasing problem in recent years. These are attacks by individuals who flood a web server with false and untraceable requests for information, overwhelming the system and ultimately crashing it.

 

However, the Act does not introduce a new offence of terrorism and does not lay down any penalties for such hacking actions. The Act does give additional powers to the police in dealing with terrorist acts, but hackers would still be prosecuted under existing laws.

 

The main anti-hacking laws of the UK are contained in the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but the wording of that Act is such that it could be difficult to use it to prosecute someone for a denial of service attack. Instead, in England, a denial of service attack might be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act; in Scotland, such an attack could be prosecuted as malicious mischief.

 

Penalties are provided for being connected with a proscribed organisation. The Act lists these and others can be added by the Secretary of State.

 

Membership or support of such an organisation can lead to a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine. Even wearing an item of clothing or carrying an article relating indicating allegiance to such an organisation can lead to six months in jail.

 

The full text of the Act can be found at

http://www.legislation.hm...s/acts2000/20000011.htm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued....

Since I have been the sustained target of long-term cyber hacking, stalking and crime, I have become a hard-ass about prosecuting it.  There is no way you will convince me to look at malicious cyber acts as anything other than crime.  It is pointless for you to even try.  Personal involvement is typically how activists are brought into being, after all.  I have the former culture of U2.com circa the Vertigo era to thank for this development in my advocacy life.  :-)  

I support tracking down malevolent hackers by whatever means necessary and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.  And if there are no current laws on the books to address their actions--since technology always out-paces laws and policies--then new laws need to be passed.  I support this too.

Frankly, anybody who prefers to collude and empathize with criminals is sort of outside the range of my intellectual interest and social class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued....

Since I have been the sustained target of long-term cyber hacking, stalking and crime, I have become a hard-ass about prosecuting it.  There is no way you will convince me to look at malicious cyber acts as anything other than crime.  It is pointless for you to even try.  Personal involvement is typically how activists are brought into being, after all.  I have the former culture of U2.com circa the Vertigo era to thank for this development in my advocacy life.  :-)  

I support tracking down malevolent hackers by whatever means necessary and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.  And if there are no current laws on the books to address their actions--since technology always out-paces laws and policies--then new laws need to be passed.  I support this too.

Frankly, anybody who prefers to collude and empathize with criminals is sort of outside the range of my intellectual interest and social class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued....

Since I have been the sustained target of long-term cyber hacking, stalking and crime, I have become a hard-ass about prosecuting it.  There is no way you will convince me to look at malicious cyber acts as anything other than crime.  It is pointless for you to even try.  Personal involvement is typically how activists are brought into being, after all.  I have the former culture of U2.com circa the Vertigo era to thank for this development in my advocacy life.  :-)  

I support tracking down malevolent hackers by whatever means necessary and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.  And if there are no current laws on the books to address their actions--since technology always out-paces laws and policies--then new laws need to be passed.  I support this too.

Frankly, anybody who prefers to collude and empathize with criminals is sort of outside the range of my intellectual interest and social class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no allegiance to Julian Assange.  

Here are the facts, as I see them:

If Assange is extradited to Sweden, this will have much greater implications than answering questions relating to rape charges that could see him facing up to 10 years in prison.  Because, if he is successfully extradited to Sweden, then the U.S. have a better chance of having him successfully extradited to their country for much more serious charges that could see him being executed.

I can understand why many U.S. citizens may detest the man.  Through his publishing of highly sensitive and classified material, he has effectively managed to destroy or, at the very least, strained the relationships the U.S. has built up with many countries. But really, is Assange the man responsible?  Or is he just a messenger?  Is he not publishing the truth?  Classified or not, information that is transferred from one source to another always runs the risk of being "overheard" no matter how many controls are put in place to prevent such a reaction.  

You may say that some information that is "overheard" should not get into the public domain as it has little or no value, and it may have a detrimental effect on all involved.  Even if it does have a detrimental effect on all involved, does that mean it shouldn't be made public?  Try this analogy on for size:

  • John is married to Mary.  One night, John is invited out with his mates for a few drinks and a game of pool.  He has a great night.  He enjoys the whole night and is laughing and joking with everyone.   He's flirting with the girls and buying drinks for strangers.  
    Later on, one of the girls in the pub notices him and makes a move for him.  After all, John is a tall, dark, good looking chap.  And he seems to be the center of attention.  He's also had a few drinks and is up for a good time. She invites him back to her place for a bit of fun.  
    He thinks he has sneaked away without anyone noticing but his mate, Matt, has noticed him leave. Matt feels he better follow him.  So Matt leaves and keeps a safe distance behind.  He watches as John enters a house.  The bedroom light goes on and all that Matt can hear is sexual groans emitting through the open window. 
    John is cheating on his wife.
    Matt isn't sure what to do.  The next day he meets Tina for lunch.  Tina knows of John and Mary but she wouldn't know them that well.  Matt tells her what he has witnessed.  He's in a predicament because he isn't sure whether he should tell Mary or not.  He feels that if he spills the beans, he will break up a marriage that he thought was very strong. Furthermore, he feels that because he was the one to spill the beans, John would never talk to him again.  On the other hand, he could keep his mouth shut and say nothing and hope that everything will work out in the end.  But he knows, that his conscience will always be eating at him.
    Tina has an idea. 
    She doesn't really know Mary or John.  If they never talk to her again, it is no skin off her back.  She offers to tell Mary that John has cheated on her.  In so doing, Matt's conscience will be cleared; Mary will know the truth; John will have to face up to his actions; and Tina was simply the messenger of information that needed to be told.


How does this analogy relate to anything?

Well, John could be likened to the United States - a fun, good looking country.  Mary could be likened to the relationships that the United States has with other countries.  Matt is the individual that has classified information that is bothering his conscience.  Tina is Wikileaks, an independent person who has no ties to either the U.S. or to its relationships with other countries.  John's act of adultery is the adverse activities that the U.S. (and/or other countries) has committed that it wants to keep out of the public domain.

So, for the U.S. to want to extradite Assange and have him prosecuted, is comparable to a man who wants revenge for the person who ratted him out to his wife for his adulterous act.

Based on the above analogy, I believe that Wikileaks is a site that is needed.  It seeks truth, even if that truth is hurtful to any or all involved.  Whether or not that truth is hurtful is irrelevant.  If all parties involved conducted their affairs morally they would have no fear of any information becoming public.  The reality is, unfortunately, that a lot of parties, and most notably the U.S., are adulterous to their very cores.


On a smaller note, Assange was a hacker.  He was a hacker in his teens - from 1987 to 1991.  He was charged and prosecuted for such illegal activities in 1992.  He has never denied his involvement in hacking.  Interestingly, for a 16 year old kid, he had an ethical manner of hacking that included the dissemination of information, that computer systems must not be damaged, and neither must data be altered, except to hide one's tracks.  Just last year, the Personal Democracy Forum, referred to him as "Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker".  In any case, Assange was a hacker 20 years ago, as a teen, when there was no world wide web, and has paid for his crimes.  So should he still be considered a hacker?  I admit that this is a loaded question because some people feel that once guilty, always guilty, even if they pay their dues and never return to immoral activities.  And that, in itself, is another big discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MARK 4:22

 

22For there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest; nor does any secret thing take place, but that it should come to light.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...