getitorfyerchest.myfreeforum.org

admin · Site Admin Joined: 25 Sep 2008 Posts: 427

I found this on another forum

Computer Misuse Act 1990.

It states, and I quote:

"Computer misuse offences
1 Unauthorised access to computer material

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;

(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and

(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—

(a) any particular program or data;

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

(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
2 Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1 above (“the unauthorised access offence”) with intent—

(a) to commit an offence to which this section applies; or

(b) to facilitate the commission of such an offence (whether by himself or by any other person);

and the offence he intends to commit or facilitate is referred to below in this section as the further offence.

(2) This section applies to offences—

(a) for which the sentence is fixed by law; or

(b) for which a person of twenty-one years of age or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or, in England and Wales, might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by section 33 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980).

(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether the further offence is to be committed on the same occasion as the unauthorised access offence or on any future occasion.

(4) A person may be guilty of an offence under this section even though the facts are such that the commission of the further offence is impossible.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
3 Unauthorised modification of computer material

(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 subsection (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;

(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.

(6) For the purposes of the [1971 c. 48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both."

As you can see from this, a simple act of getting into a computer which is not yours is an offence. Trashing data within once you are in there is a further offence.

I seem to remember that another forum had a security breach of its Admin Forum when confidential messages were abstracted and posted in Open Forum for all to see.
It would appear from the above that the perpetator had committed TWO offences, the initial hack and then the posting of data obtained by that hacking. The penalties to be levied on conviction are quite clear.

I doubt that the person concerned could ever be employed again and would probably lose any pension entilement from their current employer

Ignoring the crime when you are aware of the identity of the hacker makes you an accessory to that crime, and presumably similar penalties can be applied.

_________________
NickCordery
Administrative Big Noise of Getitorfyerchest
Grand Panjandrum aka Chief Executive Officer
Moderator in Chief
Regional Officer
Local Representative, County Representative
Im still awaiting my knighthood and peerage so cant put those in ere
Prat First Class, level 23

nemesis · Joined: 01 Aug 2009 Posts: 27 Location: Dorset

I doubt whether anyone is partularly concerned over such trivia.
No damage was caused and no complaint made at the time so its out of time anyway.
_________________
Dorset Based proud to serve NOBS

TheGatekeeper · Joined: 01 Aug 2009 Posts: 10

Yet another attempt by a petty minded person to intimidate people?

I feel that if people are stupid enough to use passwords such as their dogs names and which are common knowledge then if another person with superior intellect decides to try their luck and succeeds in exposing the stupidity of such passwords then they are to be applauded not criminalised.

Its only a forum for heavens sake not the US Pentagon Computers we are talking about.
_________________
TheGatekeeper
ello,ello wats going on ere then

countrygirl · Joined: 16 Dec 2008 Posts: 22 Location: in the pub

nemesis · Joined: 01 Aug 2009 Posts: 27 Location: Dorset

I dont understand what you are saying - No one on NOBS reads Private Messages - they are exactly that Private.
Continual allegations despite repeated assurances that NOONE reads them is boring me.
_________________
Dorset Based proud to serve NOBS

Stoatly Different · Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: