For computer crime do they have to be able to draw a direct line from the act to the person's computer? Also, does a persons computer legally mean they committed the crime? What I'm getting at is, could a group like LulzSec guarantee lighter sentences for themselves if a line could be drawn from the crime to the group but you couldn't determine who actually hit the keyboard?
In the US, they could be charged with "Conspiracy to commit <crime>".
>One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger.[1]
I'd assume English law has something equivalent -- it's a really old problem, and involving computers won't change the principles involved.
Given the close proximity of this case to the News Corp phone-hacking case, any bets on whether similar conspiracy-to-hack charges will be brought against all the people who were involved in that one? Not putting large odds on it; I'd bet that if anybody goes to jail for it, it'll only be a person or two who can be shown to have actually personally done the break-in.
Comments
For computer crime do they have to be able to draw a direct line from the act to the person's computer? Also, does a persons computer legally mean they committed the crime? What I'm getting at is, could a group like LulzSec guarantee lighter sentences for themselves if a line could be drawn from the crime to the group but you couldn't determine who actually hit the keyboard?
In the US, they could be charged with "Conspiracy to commit <crime>".
>One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger.[1]
I'd assume English law has something equivalent -- it's a really old problem, and involving computers won't change the principles involved.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29#Conspira...
Given the close proximity of this case to the News Corp phone-hacking case, any bets on whether similar conspiracy-to-hack charges will be brought against all the people who were involved in that one? Not putting large odds on it; I'd bet that if anybody goes to jail for it, it'll only be a person or two who can be shown to have actually personally done the break-in.