[funsec] So, did the BBC cross the line?

Gadi Evron ge at linuxbox.org
Sat Mar 14 06:00:28 CDT 2009


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.


More information about the funsec mailing list