Comment
| Date | 01 May 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839305700208 |
| Author | Susan Singleton,Rob Jerrard |
| Published date | 01 May 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
COMMENT
COMPUTER
MISUSE
ACf
1990-RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
The
Computer Misuse Act 1990, popularly known as
'the
Hackers Act',
brought in criminal offences for securing unauthorised access to computer
material. Section 1 provides that where aperson causes a computer to
perform any function 'with intent to secure access to any program or data
held in any computer then an offence is committed when the access is
unauthorised and the individual knows that to be the case'. Section 2
comprises afurther offence where, in committing the unauthorised access
offence in s 1, the individual intends to commit or facilitate the commission
of a further offence which further offence in itself has a sentence fixed by
law.
Section 3creates another
offence-the
unauthorised modification of
computer
material-for
example, spreading a Friday 13th computer virus
or obtaining access to a company's computer system and inserting messages
and amending its data.
In Attorney General's Reference (No 1
of
1992) (1992) The Times, 29
July, a Court of Appeal decision of 16 June 1992, s 1 of the Act came
under scrutiny. A Mr Cropp bought key-cutting equipment and gave a
computerised cash register instructions to offer him a 70
per
cent discount,
whilst at the premises of his ex-employer.
Had
this caused the computer
to perform 'any function with the intention of securing unauthorised access
to any program or data held in any computer' under sI?
Judge Aglionby in Snaresbrook Crown Court said that a s 1offence had
not been committed.
The
Act was supposed to cover 'hacking' which is
generally taken to mean using one computer to gain access to another and
in this case only
one
computer was used.
If
the judge at first instance had been correct, then the activities, for
example, of an employee taking the password of a colleague to gain access
to the firm's computer would not have committed a s 1 offence.
It
has now
been made clear that the Act is wider than the traditional form of 'outsider'
hacking.
Lord Taylor CJ in the Court of Appeal held that the word 'any computer'
in s 1should be given its ordinary meaning. He stated that 'in
our
judgment
there are no grounds whatsoever for implying, or importing the words
"other" between "any" and "computer", or excepting the computer which
is actually used by the offender from the phrase "any computer"'.
Had the Court of Appeal not overturned the judgment of a lower court
a large gap would have been left in the legislation.
The scope of the Act is broad.
It
arguably covers a legitimate licensee
making multiple copies of a program in breach of a licence agreement and
distributing them within the company to employees for use. Access is
'unauthorised' under the Act if the individual is not himself entitled to
181
To continue reading
Request your trial