Attorney General John Ashcroft stated publicly that "Terrorism includes trespassing on computer systems." This is a false statement considering terrorism is really an act of violence as a means of coercion. Computer hacking and most other computer crimes are neither an act of violence or means of coercion. Currently, computer hacking brings an average sentence greater than third degree murder. If this new legislation passes, a simple act of innocent curiosity may cost the accused their freedom. 

These laws are very likely to pass. They were initiated as the Antiterrorist Acts (or the ATA) and due to pressure among politicians caused by the events on September 11th, tolerance is very low. Pop justice has once again proven the norm. Many house and congress speakers (mainly republican) have strongly favored naming computer hacking an official act of terrorism in the past, and the influence may spread. Currently, any suspected computer crimes which occur are falsely declared acts of terrorism by many media spokespeople. 

The Microsoft owned NBC and AOL Time Warner owned CNN have both called computer hackers "Terrorists" quite openly. Ironically, the only major blows delivered to the Taliban thus far (10.3) were delivered by computer hackers. The Taliban website has been hacked numerous times already, and Afghani internet is at a crawl. Vigilant, yes, but computer hackers were the ones to act when the president was secure 27 stories below surface in Offut Air Force Base.

If computer hackers have so much power, how come we rarely see it used to destroy blindly? Robert Trigaux, a reporter and computer store owner said "The average person is more likely to have an outrage due to fire than have problems with a computer hacker." Why is this? Many would tell you that with power comes knowledge. Before you can know how to misuse a computer, you must know how to use it. In a recent interview with the convicted computer hacker Scorpion, he said that "For the average computer user firewalls and antivirus programs are like putting a barbedwire fence up around their house." 

Thinking back on the new legislation, we can't help but think about the whole unconstitutional paradox that comes with the concept of mandatory sentencing. Are politicians really precise enough to make judgments on cases they will never see, or would a judge in the courtroom be more suitable? In the past, mandatory sentence laws were made more so to make the voters secure. John Conyers (Democrat, Michigan) told Ashcroft he was "deeply troubled" and called these measures "unconstitutional." Ashcroft snapped back by referring to Conyers as "ill advised" and said that computer hacking should be fought with "every possible tool available." An aspect that politicians are yet to address is that of hacker retaliation. There will definitely be retaliation if hackers begin to get jailed for life; Retaliation which may very likely scar the internet forever and cause docile computer techies to become more volatile threats against the oppressors.

There always has to be personal rights sacrificed to gain increased public security, the question is, is freedom with restrictions really freedom to begin with?