ZDNet disturbs with some news about laws the Home Office is 'pushing' to enable severe civil rights infringements on 'cybercriminals':

The proposed Serious Crime Prevention Order is intended to combat organised crime where the police do not have enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution. It would enable civil courts to impose the orders on individuals, even if they had not been convicted of a crime.

And..

In a civil court, hearsay is admissible evidence, and the burden of proof is lighter than criminal courts.

And..

Suspected cybercriminals could also have severe limitations imposed on their financial dealings, requiring them to use "notified financial instruments" such as credit cards and bank accounts, and limit the amount of cash they can carry. They could also lose their businesses, property, or anything which may "have been used to facilitate serious crime".

And..

"It would be a good piece in the law-enforcement arsenal, if judiciously used," said Richard Starnes, president of the Information Systems Security Association (ISSA). "Obviously one pitfall is that this could adversely affect people's civil liberties, without going through the judicial process. The judicial process is there for a reason — to prevent the State from abusing its citizens," said Starnes. "In the US, this legislation would not be constitutional," said Starnes. "If the Home Office can show it can use these powers in a reasonable and prudent manner, then I'm in favour," Starnes added.

Richard Starnes, being in favour of legislation that destroys the judicial process if the government can "show it can use" the powers "reasonably" is not far removed from being in favour of North Korea having nuclear weapons if they use them "prudently".

A side problem, though, is that ZDNet appear to be applying plenty of artistic license and scaremongering tactics to the story. The green paper covering these proposed changes (PDF) the law don't appear to mention spamming, cybercrime, the Internet, or computers at all?