Re: So, did the BBC cross the line?

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, David Harley wrote:
> > It's convoluted, the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) has a lot of
> > ambiguous clauses which state "with intent", but, on the
> > counter side if you do anything unauthorised on a computer
> > system you are in breach (irrelevant of intent). So, my call,
> > as a non-lawyer would be that they've broken the law and I'd
> > like to see them investigated. Certainly if I did similar
> > without authorisation I'd expect to be arrested for it.
>
> Actually, the sticking point appears to be the unauthorised modification:
> unauthorised access seems clear, even if no-one ever goes to court over it.
> I'd say there is a possible on section 3 case, and that the guy from Pinsent
> Mason didn't understand the full technological implications. But IANAL blah
> blah blah either.

Some crimes are crimes if there is intent. Example: holding lock-picks.
Some crimes are crimes with our without intent. Example: Breaking and 
entering.

        Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.