Criminalising the Computer
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838605000108 |
| Date | 01 February 1986 |
| Published date | 01 February 1986 |
| Author | Ian Leigh |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CRIMINALISING
THE
COMPUTER
Ian Leigh*
It
can reasonably be predicted that information law will be a
recognised subject of study and expertise for lawyers of the
twenty-first century.
It
is not, of course, that there is anything new
about the concept of information nor even about the legal
regulation of it, for, the laws governing defamation, perjury,
official secrecy and negligent mis-statement are all well established.
However, the technological advances brought about by the use of
computers in storing, processing, retrieving and transferring
information are forcing acritical reassessment of the legalcontrol of
that resource. The Data Protection Act 1984 is but one aspect of a
wider trend which can be seen in developments as diverse as the
resuscitation of the action for breach of confidence in intellectual
property law and the public debates over telephone tapping and
open government. Nevertheless, the Act is an important one
because of the ubiquitous nature of the computer, which is what it
attempts to regulate. The purpose of this article is to provide an
introduction to the Data Protection Act 1984for the uninitiated and
to concentrate in rather greater detail upon the enforcement
mechanism of the Act, a subject which will be of particular interest
to criminal lawyers.
Although the regulation and security of personal information
stored on computers has been a subject of public controversy for
well over a decade, 1the present legislation is a pragmatic response
to commerical need rather than a conversion to faith in individual
privacy. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Council of
Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard
to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. The effect of this
Convention is to create a "free data market" where the
international transfer of data between member-States can take
place protected behind a system of common standards and controls.
It
was feared that if the U. K. were not a signatory our businesses
• LL.M. Solicitor, Lecturer in Law, The Polytechnic, Newcastle upon Tyne
87
To continue reading
Request your trial