[Gllug] Uh oh, govt attempting to regulate "hacking"

[Paul M]

On 08/03/06, Adrian McMenamin <adrian at mcmen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:21 +0000, Dan Stevens (IAmAI) wrote:
> > Laws should punish intent and damage caused as a result of actions,
> > not for simply hacking, which is an extreemly broad term, which is
> > interpretted in a variety of ways by different people.
>
> The word hacking doesn't appear in the Bill. And the proposed new clause
> 3 of the CMA is about intent.

Not quite: 35, 1, 3A (1)b refers to intent making it illegal to make
supply, adapt or offer articles when it its intended  for it to be
used  in criminal  hacking*, but 3A(1)a makes supply supply etc a
crime if they merely know it is designed or adapted for use in such
offences. *Either* clause is sufficient for guilt but (1)a is the much
more problematic one and the one that would make supplying rootkits
ofr study, illegal, and potentially a much wider ranger of things,
with scanning tools potentially falling under the category of things
adapted to use in such crimes.

The fact that there would be appear to be a degree of flexibility or
arbitariness should not be a cause for lesser alarm, but, rather,  for
greater. The principle that the law should not be arbitary -- i.e.
that people should be able to know clearly, and in advance,  whether
they are breaking the law -- is one of the basic precepts of
justice.** Experience has taught that the ability to apply the law
selectively, in the way this bill would allow, is a dangerous thing.
Governments have a tendency to apply to those that inconvinience them
(thier political opponents) or whoever has their favour (which in this
case might be large (software) corporations.

Paul M

* Section 34 draws the net much wider that previous provision, more
than just breaking into computers.
** There is an excellent discussion of this in the current issue of
the LRB, in the context of other laws the current government has
introduced, but, sadly, its not available on line. (John Gardner, What
security is there against arbitrary government?, London Review of
Books, Vol 28 No. 5: 9 March 2006)

The relevant clauses:

35

Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in computer misuse offences
After section 3 of the 1990 Act insert—

"3A     Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence
under section 1 or 3
(1)   A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies
or offers to supply any article—
(a)   knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of
or in connection with an offence under section 1 or 3; or
(b)   intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission
of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

---

IANAL, I just play one on TV.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug