Re: So, did the BBC cross the line?

[David Lodge <dave () cirt net>]

On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 06:00 -0500, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > 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.

Mr Harley's already quoted the CMA in another reply, so I won't requote
it. The problem is that the CMA is a bit ambiguous in that "intent" and
"knowledge" much be there. This is where lawyers get rich and people may
get away with what could be a criminal act in another country. On the
counter side, you can still be prosecuted under the CMA if you access a
computer with no protection, it's the doing of unauthorised stuff that's
bad.

I'm intrigued at what legal advice the Beeb sought before they embarked
on this: they have a lot of good lawyers, but whether the lawyers are
experts in the CMA is a different matter.

In terms of lock picks, that's even more fun under UK law, as strictly
they're tools that can be used to commit a crime, so come under the
remit of being equipped. Though, I'm not actually certain that their use
would be illegal, as it's not technically "breaking and entering", and
in UK law trespass is a civil offence. (Not that I'd try this, far too
risky.)

Once again IANAL.

dave

_______________________________________________
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.