[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Guess what happened!!!

In article <MERLYN.94Aug12131719@linda.teleport.com>
           merlyn@stonehenge.com "Randal L. Schwartz" writes:

> As to my opinion about Oregon's computer crime laws... in the words of
> Beavis: "they suck".  From my attorney's reading of the laws, *anyone*
> can be tossed a class C felony (5 years, $250,000 fine) in Oregon if
> someone accuses them of "unauthorized" "altering" of nearly anything
> computer related.  Trouble is, the code doesn't define either
> authorize or alter, and even the judge and prosecution agree that
> changing the background color of the screen is "alter".  Yikes!
> 
> (The code was originally intended to nail dialup crackers, but it
> seems to cover nearly any disagreement now.)

Poor comfort, perhaps, but the equivalent UK law, the Computer Misuse Act
1990, says:

"3 (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if -

  (a)  he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the
  contents of any computer;  and

  (b)  at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the
  requisite knowledge.

(2)  For the purposes of (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to
cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing -

  (a)  to impair the operation of any computer;  or

  (b)  to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any
  computer;  or

  (c)  to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of
  any such data.

(3)  The intent need not be directed at -

  (a)  any particular computer;

  (b)  any particular program or data or a program or data of any
  particular kind;  or

  (c)  any particular modification or a modification of any particular
  kind.

(4)  For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is
knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.

(5)  It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an
unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned
in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely
temporary.

5 (3)  In relation to an offence under section (3), either of the following
is a significant link with domestic jurisdiction [[United Kingdom]] -

  (a)  that the accused was in the home country concerned at the time when
  he did the act which caused the unauthorised modification;  or

  (b)  that the unauthorised modification took place in the home country
  concerned.

17 (6)  References to any program or data held in a computer include
references to any program or data held in any removable storage medium
which is for the time being in the computer;  and a computer is to be
regarded as containing any program or data held in any such medium.

(7)  A modification of the contents of any computer takes place if, by the
operation of any function of the computer concerned or any other computer -

  (a)  any program or data held in the computer concerned is altered or
  erased;  or

  (b)  any program or data is added to its contents;

and any act which contributes towards causing such a modification shall be
regarded as causing it.

(8)  Such a modification is unauthorised if -

  (a)  the person whose act causes it is not himself entitled to determine
  whether the modification should be made;  and

  (b)  he does not have consent to the modification from any person who is
  so entitled.

(10)  References to a program include references to part of a program."

I have quoted this in a fair amount of detail because in the absence of
clear definitions the practice of other jurisdictions might be interesting;
also there has been much discussion of the illegality of viruses in the UK,
and this is subject to the same clauses.  The most important point seems to
be that the modification must be an impairment of some kind.

-- 
John F Hall     jfhall@avondale.demon.co.uk    CompuServe: 100016,1210
Follow-Ups: References: