Computer Misuse Act
The Computer Misuse Act is a UK legislation that criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems, unauthorized access with intent to commit further offenses, and unauthorized acts with intent to impair the operation of a computer. It aims to protect computer systems and data from unauthorized access and misuse, and it outlines penalties for individuals found guilty of such offenses.
3 Key excerpts on "Computer Misuse Act"
eBook - ePubCorporate Fraud and Internal Control
A Framework for Prevention
- Richard E. Cascarino(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
...In the United States, it was not until 1996 that an act was passed to make it illegal to even view information held on a computer without appropriate authorization. Following the events of September 11, 2001, and the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act was passed. Powers of law enforcement officers were greatly increased, including the ability to obtain information from internet service providers without a warrant. Penalties for unauthorized usage of or access to computers vary greatly on a country-by-country basis. Even in the United States, few computer criminals actually end up in jail with the longest sentence of 20 years imprisonment handed out going to Albert Gonzalez in 2010 for Credit Card theft and the selling of 170 million Credit Card and ATM numbers. In contrast, as early as 1995, in China, a computer hacker was executed after being found guilty of embezzling $200,000 from a national bank. Worldwide legislation now covers such elements as: Cyberdefamation laws Data protection acts Online piracy acts Stored communication acts Uniform computer information transaction acts Digital copyright acts Digital evidence acts Computer fraud and abuse acts Antispam acts in over 30 countries A variety of child protection acts Because many of the laws were enacted several years ago, the wording may seem to be out of date with current threats. There is continual pressure across the globe to make laws up to date with new risks inherent in today’s mobile and social networked world. In all cases, investigators should be aware that, at any time, computer evidence may be challenged as to its relevancy, reliability, and admissibility. The only thing that can be said for sure about computer law is that it will change on an ongoing basis. NOTE 1. Kevin Mandia and Chris Prosise, Incident Response: Investigating Computer Crime, Berkeley, California: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2001...
eBook - ePub- Robin Bryant, Robin Bryant(Authors)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Chapter 4 Law and Digital Crime Ed Day with Robin Bryant Introduction Between 2006 and 2010 there were only 90 convictions in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (total derived from data given in Hansard, 2012). Further, the number of convictions per year actually fell between 2006 and 2010 (from 25 to 10, ibid.). Yet it seems inconceivable that this small absolute number and relative decline is the result of fewer ‘computer crimes’ being committed. Part of the explanation for this apparent paradox is that many of the crimes within the UK that occur online, or with other digital characteristics, are prosecuted under alternative legislation such as the Fraud Act 2006. For example, hacking is covered explicitly by the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA), and although it might be involved in enacting extortion (for example), it is the extortion that is likely to be prosecuted as this will carry the heavier penalty on conviction. Deciding how to make best use of the inevitably limited resources for tackling digital crime is a key aspect of a pertinent debate. It is estimated that the amount spent on defending against cybercrime (for example the cost of anti-virus software) is far higher than the amount spent on policing cybercrime (the actual apprehension and prosecution of offenders). However, research suggests that a small number of criminal networks are responsible for a large number of cybercrime incidents, so the money might be better spent on targeting these groups rather than trying to defend against the incidents in the first instance. If this is the case then legislation will have key role to play in the efficient policing of digital crime, and it is vital that the legislation be appropriate, reasonable and logically targeted. Many difficulties arise when using legislation for targeting crimes committed in rapidly changing technical contexts, not least of which is that it is difficult for the details of new legislation to keep pace with technological change...
eBook - ePub- David Brooksbank(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The Computer Misuse Act 1990 closed many loopholes by creating new offences. Section 1 concerns using a computer to knowingly secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in any computer. Section 2 aggravates that offence if the person has an accompanying intent to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence by himself or someone else even if the offence proves impossible. Section 3 covers the person who, with requisite knowledge and intent, makes unauthorised changes to the content of any computer or disrupts its usage; planting a virus in a computer program would come under this category. A security officer should note any unusual out-of-hours presence in the computer suite by a computer staff member: they should be challenged and their reason for being there should be verified. Trespass Trespass is examined under three headings: civil, criminal and aggravated trespass. Civil trespass Trespass is not normally a criminal offence, but it constitutes in law an act of interference with the possession of land and is actionable in a civil court without proof of damage. A court order may be made prohibiting a repetition and, if the order is disobeyed, damages may be awarded. If a trespasser refuses to leave property when requested to do so, under common law, they may lawfully be removed by the use of only such force as is necessary to eject them. A security officer employed by the owner of the land or premises concerned is the owner’s agent and can exercise the powers of the owner. In the majority of cases trespassers have quite innocent intentions and will leave immediately they are told they are trespassing. However, should their actions suggest a presence for a sinister purpose the police should be informed and, in the meantime, they should be kept under observation...
