MP wants to stitch 'digital' misuse laws into one bill An MP has urged the government to consolidate the current 31 pieces of legislation touching on the misuse of digital devices into a single bill in order to tackle the growing number offences. Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru MP, brought the Criminal Offences (Misuse of Digital Technologies and Services) (Consolidation) private …
"Police experts state that there are as many as 7 million online frauds a year and 3 million other online crimes. Very many of these go unreported,"
I am pretty sure that trees do indeed fall over in woodland and actually make a noise when no one is around to hear. However, citing figures for unreported crime requires the services of a psychic someone with an agenda and an imagination.
A crime is a crime regardless of method/means... fraud is fraud, libel is libel, unauthorised access is trespass/breaking entering. etc., etc.
Just be thankful that the former chief constable of Avon and Somerset police is no longer around. He doesn't just reject claims if you're unwise enough to make them, he'll laugh in your face too it seems.
https://nodpi.org/2013/11/27/one-last-protest-avon-and-somerset-pcc-police-public-forum/
Note how he apparently claimed that intercepting communications was 'not a crime'. My own inquiries into it lead to a letter from the home office telling me that any allegations ought to be taken to the police (which appears to directly contradict what Nick Gargan was saying). Although to me this is a complete waste of time and an exercise in futility since they seem to ignore such complaints as a matter of course.
And the less said about BT/Phorm, Vodafone/Bluecoat and Three/Bluecoat the better. Thames Valley Police aren't much better either it seems.
Much as I'm loath to defend them, why would you expect this bill to cover foreign scams? For starters, this is a law covering other things. It covers similar ground sure, but separate offences.
Secondly, how are UK laws supposed to do anything against crimes that are committed in other countries? About the only possible response would be to penalise any UK companies that profit from such scams, but that's unlikely to be a large part of the problem.
As for 'switching off' bullies, do you think that getting rid of your phone and never going online again is really a solution in this day and age?
I post a video of somebody harassing me without their permission.
If I take a photograph of a painting of somebody harassing me?
We don't have one assault law for knives, another for guns, another for running with scissors. The 'digitality' of a crime is just the means of the crime. (Of course there are crimes specific to the interception of all communications which the Government want to reserve for themselves.)
"
"Posting images without the subject’s permission and the posting of messages that are discriminatory or threatening, or that cause distress or anxiety, would become offences,"
"
If that law were to be passed it would criminalize a large proportion of images and written reports that are posted by online newspapers. I am quite certain that quite a few people are caused "distress or anxiety" when their misdeeds are published.
Putting a photo of you on the beach or at a football match on Facebook would make you guilty of breaking that law unless you obtain permission from everyone else in the crowd who appears in the photograph.
Drafting a practical law is not nearly as simple as that police officer (or politicians) believe it is.
What does "make it a clear offence repeatedly" mean?
Anyway, the part about consolidating crimes in one bill may not be a bad idea, but the new offenses it creates are way too broad. In fact, if I lived in the UK I would go so far as to say they are distressing and a source of anxiety. But I suppose the people who wrote it are protected from ex post facto prosecution under their new law even if it passes.
Although its a fair tactic for an MP as one of the few key powers they have , the real problem is the police not moving budgets and training unless forced by new legislation.
Anything illegal is still illegal, doing it 'digital' doesn't change much. Transparent management priorities would ameliorate the need to add to the regulatory agenda and at the very least mean we had a much better idea of any legal gaps that do exist.
Waiting for regulation of course means there will be a negotiation about needing new budgets.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
