Cyber criminals do things online, so they should be punished by stealing the Internet. This is as easy as removing the crowbar from the anti-theft. still is? This week’s out-of-the-box ideas of a high-level policeman sparked debates about young crime and punishment among cybersecurity types. Ch Supt Gavin Thomas, chairman of the Association of Police Officers of England and Wales, said in an interview that WiFi jammers-devices worn on the ankle or wrist will block the Internet-are a smarter punishment for cybercrime that can be used as a prison. He said: “We must stop using the penalties of the 19th century to fight crimes of the 21st century.” Few people doubt this, but there are some problems with the jammer. First of all, according to the 2006 Radio Telegraph Act, they are illegal, so we must work hard on it. Second, they do not work.
Cal Leeming said: “Although we desperately need other methods than prisons, technically speaking, the use of portable jammer is neither feasible nor reliable. CalLeeming was jailed for hacking and is now a security consultant. Even You can do it. Implementing the connection itself without interrupting nearby connections will be very difficult because the radio works itself, so it can be easily bypassed with cables.”
Darren Martyn, a convicted hacker in Ireland who later became a security researcher (he is a member of the LulzSec team), added: “This will affect any person who is marked as “human”. People cause major damage. Despite legal and technical obstacles, does a mandatory screen interruption (a digital foundation that is increasingly released by parents) help solve a wider range of problems? Mary, a network psychologist at the University of Dublin Professor Aiken expressed doubts about this. She said that if the criminal justice system cannot keep up with the pace of technological development, then delaying education will be a greater threat. She explained: “It is necessary, if not impossible, to get out of problems such as youth hacking. Is also very difficult. “What is needed is to fundamentally reassess the impact of technology on youth development.” ”
In a report published by Middlesex University (Middlesex University) in October “The Way for Youth to Enter Cybercrime (pdf)”, Edson and her colleagues recommended not to frustrate the digital skills of these young people, but to They provide safer options. Jessica Barker, a cybersecurity consultant who runs the cyber.uk website, agrees. She cited the findings of Sonia Livingstone, the head of childcare for the Digital Future Research Project at the London School of Economics. This shows that whether they are naughty children or young criminals, refusing screen time or accessing the Internet can be counterproductive. Buck said: “Children who are denied access are more likely to have dangerous behaviors because they have found another way to access the Internet unattended.”