Talk:Computer Misuse Act 1990

hack vs. crack

 * Page said:
 * Hackers who program their computers to search through password permutations are therefore liable, even though all their attempts to log on are rejected by the target computer.


 * TomViza wrote (in edit sumary):
 * replace hacker with cracker throughout (read the Jargon file if you don't know why)


 * David91 wrote (in edit sumary):
 * The Act criminalises all hacking regardless of skill level or hat colour.

"'Hackers who program their computers to search through password permutations'" is neccessarily wrong. No one who uses a brute force method like this is a hacker, by the very definition of the word. (as given in the [Jargon file]).

(in fact they might be a hacker, but what they are doing is certainly not hacking)

The judge in R v Gold may have used the word hacking, but he missused the word, and it is wrong to perpetuate this misunderstanding of the term, especially in an online reference like wikipedia.

Personally I would say that "hacker" is a term of reverence (yes, even amoung adult professionals) and equating it with criminality is offensive, (or at least offensive online - we can't help the mass media...)

References to "hat colour" are IMHO childish, but that is a problem with the page Security_cracker, and not this one.

"The term cracking did not exist in 1990" - I doubt this. source?

Anyone else with thoughts? TomViza 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The original case was in 1990 and, having lived through the era, I can certify that the word "cracking" applied only to safes and other secure physical objects like nuts at that time. Thus, in historical context, the usage of hacker/hacking is correct. Secondly, the law is not interested in obscure disputes about slang. Parliament has created three specific offences which criminalise activities of a certain type and not activities by certain defined classes of person (particularly because Parliament chose not to define the defendants to avoid imposing limits on those who might be prosecuted). The moment anyone introduces a specific and limited usage like "black hat" this distorts the law and misleads the reader. Hence, this page should use generic terminology. No matter what the purists might think in the virtual world. most people understand the unlimited scope of the word "hacking" and unless someone can come up with another unlimited word that everyone recognises as descriptive of the generic activity, I suggest leaving hacking in place. Alternatively, no slang of any sort should be used. I will rewrite the page saying "a person who". David91 02:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone has gone through the article changing all the "Hackers" to "Crakers". When I clicked on the first use Wikipedia redirected "Cracker" to "Hacker", so this was a bit of a waste of time.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You should have just reverted that edit. I have now done this. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Warez and cracking codes

 * Warez and software cracking codes which modify algorithms or patches stored on a computer and designed to limit access to, or prevent the copying of software packages or files, are caught by s3.

Are you sure about this? As I understand this law, it is intended to protect owners of computer systems against people who try to hack/crack into them. That is to say, the "authority" to modify data lies with the owner of the computer. But the above sentence is saying something totally different, that it is illegal to tinker with your own computer to overcome restrictions on its use imposed by someone else. If the CMA does say this, then it is self-contradictory, since it would imply that security and counter-hacking measures on one's own computers would be illegal if they successfully thwart hacks (which, after all, are designed to "limit access to" files). Of course, the UK has anti-circumvention law (and did to a limited degree even before the EUCD), but that's under copyright laws (mainly the Copyright Design & Patents Act) and nothing to do with the CMA. Indeed if "authority to modify" under the CMA rested with the copyright holder of data, it would be the entertainment industry's wet dream: its people would have the right to hack into people's computers looking for unauthorized files, and any security mechanisms that stop them would be illegal. Flagboy 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC) for more information please visit www.meatspin.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.189.10 (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) skybot is efficnt name for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdcoool (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New tarrifs
"1(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 both."

Although it says it below, it probably should be noted here that this tarrif no longer applies.

TheLucster 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased & Messy Page
This page seems to be biased and is really messy. i am new to wikipedia so dont know how to put in all the thingys saying what its like. bassically i believe there needs to be a better introduction especially. --22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.199.214 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is the law of the UK, then should the spelling of words be British-English (I.e Unauthorized/Unauthorised) 79.77.175.181 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind) --Jwitch (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Rationale that even Pooh Bear written in Java running on Javascript could understand.
Dear HackerWhoGotCaught

"If you have the ability to hurt an computer and find an excuse, you can easily find a place to do it where any lawyer capable of finding you will have better things to do than take you to court."

Yours Sincerely

Dr John

oh and if you run away you cant get to look at your lovely crash dump (core on unix)

Shadow E? Chalisque

Ex? maybe?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.31.209 (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MI6? GCHQ?? Nuclear Weapons!?!
In these edits, added the very tall assertion that no less than MI6 (the UK's secret foreign intelligence service) and GCHQ (the UK's secret communications interception establishment) were intimately involved in this case. Moreover, he also asserts that British nuclear weapons could be controlled over Prestel. He provided no sources, none have been forthcoming at all in the intervening year, and UKSTEVE hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since. These are, frankly, pretty outlandish claims; stuff like this has to be supported by multiple reliable sources - we can't take it on someone's sayso. I'm going to remove this, and it shouldn't be be re-added, even as a "it is claimed", without a reliable source as to who claims it, and what evidence they have. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Police and Justice Act 2006 Amendments
With the WikiLeaks related arrest and charging of people under the Computer Misuse Act the amendments in the Police and Justice Act are being used. To aid understanding I have added references to the text of each section. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Also relevant to the discussion, adding vehicles containing computers to the PJA 2006 as well as other non-computer devices that can access networks or USB sticks such as DVD players, multimeters, smart bulbs etc.

Vandalism of this article
There have been several attempts to vandalise the section describing the first legal case against a computer hacker by unnamed editors. Making the article semi-protected may be appropriate.

Semi-protection requested.

Andrew Swallow (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)