Extending Roland's spam example... with a question.
If person X arranges for spam to be sent, or sends it themselves to person
Y, with the intention of getting person Y to organize their spam filter as a
means of automatically removing spam of a similar nature, but because of the
logic used by the spam filters to remove X's spam, also, eventually to
remove legitimate e-mail Y wished to receive, would that particular
subterfuge constitute a Computer Misuse Act offence by X, or would any
ignorance by Y negate that offence. The logic behind the legal offence
being that the intention of X would be to cause Y to cause their own
computer to carry out actions which they would not knowingly allow.
Where such logical manipulation is used, the implementing logic could
equally be scientifically used to provide ro bust evidence.
If such scenarios existed I suppose the trick would be to wait until it was
clear what X was trying to censor Y from reading, as that would appear to
indicate something which caused X some fear. I guess the delete key is the
simpler answer to spam where important issues may be at stake.
Ian W
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Roland Perry
Sent: 19 October 2002 09:29
To: [log in to unmask]
In article <[log in to unmask]>, Charles
Christacopoulos <[log in to unmask]> writes
>The point is how to use CCTV to provide additional evidence of bad conduct
>(which
>in itself may be undesirable but not a crime). I can list some examples
(those
>with 1 are (probably) a crime, those with 2 contravene regulations, with 3
>difficult for me to classify, with 4 it is Friday.
>
>2 - downloading p o*r-n
>1 - downloading c h*i"l"d p o*r-n
>2 - copying essays of the internet
>2 - harassment/bullying
>4 - couples suffocating each other in public (kissing), crime in other
countries
>3 - letting off fire extinguishers
>1 - drunk and disorderly
>2 - sending spam
>1 - hacking
>etc.
>
>So for example if there are two persons in an IT room, one hacks and the
>other sends spam we can use as evidence the CCTV material (together with
>computing evidence) and do the hacker but not the spammer. The hacker may
have
>done no harm whatsoever apart from exposing an incompetent system
administrator
>:-) Not fair on the hacker but this is not the point.
Sending spam from the UK is a crime, it just gets a bit lost in the
woodwork because of all that spam from overseas where it's not a crime
over which we have legal jurisdiction, and because the law that's broken
is Data Protection 1998, and we all know how vigorously members of the
public are prosecuted when they transgress.
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|