Policy makers should reject pressure to draft new laws targeting phishing and other types of cyber crime because existing statutes already cover most of the illegal activity, a researcher who investigates online criminals said. Although phishing, malware attacks, and botnet propagation have all come about in the last decade or …
Thats not really news. Pretty much everything made illegal by new laws since ~1950 has already been illegal under some law passed over the last ~900 years anyway.
New laws that are passed are worded terribly. Anybody cynical about our elected leaders would think that most politicians are lawyers and benefit from being able to argue endlessly about shoddily written laws. Even less cynical people would probably agree that politicians write laws to show they are doing something.
I mean, has anybody actually seen the collective laws of england? Like all 3 bookcases full of it? Plus the monthly additions?
"Anybody cynical about our elected leaders would think that most politicians are lawyers and benefit from being able to argue endlessly about shoddily written laws."
You give our glorious leaders far too much credit. Politicians are generally failed lawyers with the odd failed doctor or teacher thrown in.
We need laws with greater scope
Isn't the issue that the laws are country-based and the crims are globally based (multi-nationals if you like)?
Every time the EU tries to do something globally, a bunch of people come out of the woodwork criticising in them for 'interfering with our sovereignty'. Thus the crims get away with it. The UN (or some other world-wide organisation), for whom these laws should be drafted by, have no power nor the political will to act. For goodness sake, they couldn't even send George & Tony to the Hague to face justice.
This gets at the basis of what laws are drafted for; whom is one trying to protect? And what about countries where the politicians are fundamentally corrupt -- that'll be most of them then.
So the crims will keep getting away with it, playing the system with all its weaknesses.
Nah...some of the more recently UK law has been pretty good at cleaning up case law and conflicts and stuffs.
Theres a shit load more than three bookcases full, don't forget that the majority of law in England comes from the whole precedent thing, then theres all the aids to interpretting the law.
Most modern laws are rushed through as a response to some problem or loophole, as it were- anyone remember the Dangerous Dogs Act? The public wants a prompt response to an issue and the gutter press jump on it, think of the tabloids wanting vigilante justice against released paedophiles etc- if the govt. don't make laws quickly on this then they get slammed... best to try and get it right dead quick and hope you don't get slammed later.
But yeah, new laws are basically in response to growing tabloid concern.. a red-top prints the word 'Hacker' and suddenly the commons are in session.
Most things in life...
...are either illegal or immoral.
...The rest has been found to cause cancer in rats.
Laws? Why more laws?
Whatever happened to the Laws of the Playground? You remember - play nice, be fair, and don't yank each other's chains?
Or how about that law that is recognised by almost every religion going? You remember - Love thy neighbour?
Or the other one - Do unto others as you would like them to do on to you?
Are these broad enough to cover most things?
OR fattening ^^
Paris, as an exercise to find in which category she belongs to...
@ James Condron
Hmm. Point, I suppose the forms & precedents and pretty much everything else should be included as well as Halisburys.
Oh well, Halisburys takes up a good 3 bookcases anyway. (Assuming that your throwing the annual abridgements when they get out of date, otherwise you can add another couple of bookcases.)