Is The Computer Misuse Act (1990) Appropriate?

Is The Computer Misuse Act (1990) Appropriate? The Computer Misuse Act (1990) and whether it Remains an Appropriate Legislative Instrument David Reid The Computer Misuse Act (UK) 1990 (CMA) [1] was one of the earliest acts aimed at protecting the integrity and security of computer systems. However the rapid development of technology has raised concerns as to whether the act remains effective and appropriate. Section 1: Hacking The Computer Misuse Act was created to aid the prosecution of technological related crimes, commonly known as hacking. The most prominent case was R v Gold and Schifreen[2], where Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold accessed British Telecoms Viewdata service by shoulder surfing[3] an engineers username and password. The credentials were very simple; this brought about concerns as to the integrity and security of computer system access. The pair were prosecuted under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981[4], and received a relatively small penalty fined  £750 and  £600 respectively. This case threw into light the lack of legislature regarding crimes of this manner, and so the CMA was created. Hacking is defined in Section 1 of the CMA as, unauthorised access to any programme or data held in any computer[5]. This definition is moulded such that external hackers like Schifreen and Gold can be prosecuted easily. However it has not been as simple in other cases such as Ellis v DPP (No 1)[6]. In this case an ex-student was using other student accounts that had been left logged in in order to access computers in the campus library. It was argued whether it could be deemed unauthorised under section 1. Lord Woolf CJ however said that the access was still unauthorised and that statutory provisions were sufficiently wide to include use of the computers; Ellis was prosecuted under section 1 of the CMA. The question what is unauthorised access? has been a cause of concern for many cases under section 1. The key early case was DPP v Bignell [1998] Div. Ct.[7] in which married police officers accessed the police database in order to find the car of an ex-lover. Accessing the database was not unauthorised, but their use of it was and they were found to be guilty. Other cases that contributed confusion were, R v Bow Street Magistrate and Allison, ex parte US Govt [1999] HL[8], R v Ashley Mitchell 2011[9] and   R v Cuthbert 2005 Mag Ct[10]. The media and other critics applied a lot of pressure for change. The government accepted the All Party Internet Groups recommendations and section 1 became triable in either way, which was an amendment from section 35 of the Police and Justice Act (PJA) 2006[11]. A person guilty of the offence in section 1 can be sentenced to imprisonment of a term not exceeding 12 months or upon indictment, imprisonment to a term not exceeding 2 years. There is debate for increasing the sentencing tariff to 3 years so that it can be considered a serious crime and thereby have a deterrent effect. However the current tariff allows both significant sentencing power and the ability to prosecute for mere attempts at the offence[12]. In addition to the prosecuting powers of section 1, section 3a states that Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in computer misuse offences, punishable by up to 2 years in prison or a fine or both[13]. This has caused concern in the technology community as to how the distinction will be made between lawful and unlawful use of the software. Despite having flaws, it is likely that this shall be an effective deterrent from both section 1 and section 3 offenders and is a step in the protection of our computers. Section 3: M ­odifying Computers and Denial of Service Attacks (DoS) Section 3 of the CMA was originally designed to prohibit the creation and distribution of viruses under the idea that they cause unauthorised modification[14]. Four years after the creation of the CMA, the internet sparked a change from isolated computer systems, into a worldwide network in which all computers could communicate. This caused a revolution in computer misuse and new vulnerabilities to computer security. These developments are cited as the main reasons for developing legislation in a technologically neutral manner, so as not to require regular updating. Proof that this was needed was in the R v Lennon[15] case; Lennon was accused of sending 5 million e-mails to his former employer causing a DoS attack. This is known as mail-bombing and causes the server to overflow preventing access to the network. However this attack could not be addressed under section 3 as the receiving system was designed to handle such e-mail messages and therefore could be viewed as authorised. The decision was reversed upon appeal, however it confirmed that authorisation remained unclear. Another question that has arisen in regards to section 3, is how modification is viewed regarding DoS attacks. Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks involve the installation of software on computers in order to take control of them. It is uncertain whether this could be viewed as unauthorised modification. Therefore, under section 36 of the 2006 Police and Justice act unauthorised modification was amended to unauthorised impairment. This removes the idea that only erasing or modification of computer systems are liable, and criminalises DoS attacks. However, by looking at the difference between reported cybercrime incidents and the number of prosecutions each year, you can see that there are a large number of cases that seem to be slipping through the justice system. It can be assumed that this is due to the rapidly changing internet a technologically neutral approach in legislation, as adopted in section 3, has been unable to predict new and innovative attacks. It seems that the CMA has been more effective in dealing with computer focused attacks than attacks upon computer network systems. Section 4: Jurisdiction Section 4 of the CMA states that (1) Except as provided below in this section, it is immaterial for the purposes of any offence under section 1 or 3 above- (a) whether any act or other event proof of which is required for conviction of the offence occurred in the home country concerned; or (b) whether the accused was in the home country concerned at the time of any such act or event.[16] This is a very wide scope, however with the advances in technology, it can be avoided. For example, by hosting a website such as StormFront, a white supremacist page on a server in America, it cannot be taken down due to their right of free speech. However while the creator remains in the UK, he can be prosecuted. Conclusion [1] Computer Misuse Act 1990 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents [2] R v Gold and Schifreen 1988 http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-gold-and-schifreen-hl-21-apr-1988/ [3] Shoulder surfing definition of shoulder surfing in (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2016, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/shoulder_surfing [4] Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/45 [5] Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.1 (CMA). [6] Ellis v DPP (No 1) 2001 http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2001/may/ellis-v-director-of-public-prosecutions [7] DPP v Bignell http://swarb.co.uk/director-of-public-prosecutions-v-bignell-and-another-qbd-6-jun-1997/ [8] R v Bow Street Magistrate and Allison, ex parte US Govt [1999] HL http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-bow-street-magistrates-ex-parte-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-in-re-allison-hl-2-sep-1999/ [9] R v Ashley Mitchell 2011 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0122.html [10] R v Cuthbert 2005 Mag Ct http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4317008.stm [11] The House of Commons, Computer Misuse Act (Amendment) Bill (5th April 2005) http://www.derekwyattexmp.co.uk/upload/docs/CMAdft1.pdf [12] All Party Internet Group, Revision of the Computer Misuse Act (June 2004) [13] Police and justice act 2006 [14] David S. Wall, Cybercrime: The Transformation of Cybercrime in the Information Age (Polity Press 2007). [15] R v Lennon, unreported, November 2, 2005, Wimbledon Magistratesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸ Court (on). [16] Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.4 (CMA). Literature Review: Feminism and Media Literature Review: Feminism and Media Dickinson, Sonia, and Donna Gill. â€Å"Are Women Offended by the Way they are Portrayed in Advertising?†. International Journal of Advertising 28.1(2009): 175-178. Women’s Studies International. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. â€Å"Are Women offended by the Way they are portrayed in Advertising?† Sonia Dickinson and Donna Gill attempt to answer this question. Their article, which is aimed at women around 35 years and older, displays their finding about how women respond differently to advertisements in that the responses are not always, for all women, negative. The argument is broken down into a three-point explanation that builds upon itself as it develops. The third part adheres to the opposition’s point of view on how women overreact to advertisements that are in no way objective or harmful. The breaking down of the argument allows the audience to understand not only the argument itself, but the inclusion of the authors’ multiple personal statements and realizations during the development of their argument as well as their responses to the results.[2] Throughout the article there are various representative sections that contain the personal opinions of Sonia and Donna[3]. The realizations and responses mentioned above draw the audience into the article and in crease their acceptance of the argument being made. They also admit that the question posed does prompt the readers to give a confirmatory answer, and thus solidifies the authors’ presentation of nugatory respons[4]e. In comparison to my topic, the source will allow me to, when I reference the opposing side, generate scholarly support. However, when I do have to discredit the opposing side, this discretization will be seen as all the more intelligent because of the use of a scholarly article. Back, Debora Baker. â€Å"The ‘F’ Word: How the Media Frame Feminism.† NWSA Journal 10.1 (1998): 139. Women’s Studies International. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. â€Å"The ‘F’ Word: How the Media Frame Feminism† Debora[5] intends to discuss the relationship between the media and feminism that resulted from the media’s negative presentation of the all feminists and the entire feminist movement, it’s effect of framing on society’s acceptance or rejection of the cause and those instilled in support of the movement, and finally feminism and its pursuits and response to the media. Based on the length, diction, and complexity of the article, the article is meant to be read by those who are currently completing or have completed a mastery of an upper high school reading level. Debora presents examples of feminism with either an underlying negative tone or an obvious negative view (of the media) and accompanies it with the popular or public’s view of feminism and feminists. Finally, she supports this with the media’s creation, influence or support of the negative view of the public towards feminists’ and feminism’s advancements in their portrayal of w omen and the advance of women until they are equal to men. While well poised, the article does suffer on credibility in the way that it uses some of its sources, in that this shoddy procedure causes the suspicion of the audience towards the credibility of the argument being presented. In relation to my article, this source will be used to support the argument of how the media has a negative effect on women as it dismantles the actions of and advancements for women that have been or are in the process of being secured by feminists. Cantor, Muriel G. â€Å"Feminism and the Media.† Society 25.5 (1998): 76-81. SPORTDicuss with Full Text. Web. 13 Feb. 2015. â€Å"Feminism and the Media† The article by Muriel G. Cantor focuses on how â€Å"second wave† feminists responded to and tried to enforce change in how women were portrayed in the media. She expands this to include the explanation of origin and the growth of â€Å"second wave† feminism, the tactics it used to try to persuade owners of media outlets to produce an accurate and supportive portrayal of women, the origins of the relationship between the media and feminism, and finally, the areas in which women were seen as more subordinates to men than currently. Her intended audience is those who want to learn more: about the origins of modern day feminism, the large focus of modern day feminism’s roots in interacting with the media, and/or â€Å"second wave† feminism. In her presentation, Muriel uses specific company names, making grounds for the presentation’s credibility and thus convincing the reader more than could be achieved through generalizations. She also mentions a vari ety of setbacks that the movement took while fighting for the fair portrayal of women in media become just that, a fight, instead of continuous, easy advancements. This causes readers to become engaged and points to possible overall success of â€Å"second wave† feminism. However, she poses the question of whether the movement was a success or a failure in regards to its present existence, change in existence, and changes in media [relationship] that resulted. From this, readers are to discern their own answer to the posed question, for Muriel does not give her opinion. This cause readers to remain intellectually active after reading. It could also point them to discovering more about both the media and feminism and looking at them and their relationship through a different lends than before. Credibility of her presentation and reliability in what she says is established through the sources, the title that Muriel holds at a university, and the number of works that she has pub lished. In relation to my article, I would use this to support the theses of the previous two articles, thus the relationship between the media and women and feminism but also would use to explain how this relationship came to be. Anderson, Annie, When The Mainstream Met The Second Wave: Media Representations of Women Feminism in 1970s America (2012). American Studies Honors Papers. Paper 4. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/americanstudieshp/4 When The Mainstream Met The Second Wave: Media Representation of Women and Feminism Annie Anderson attempts to portray the relationship between the media of the 1970s and Second Wave Feminism. She begins by looking that the two separately but immediately moves into the feuding interaction between the two. Her presentation focuses on the Time and Life magazines’ coverage on Second Wave Feminism and how the response of Second Wave Feminism created a framework for the relationship between Second Wave Feminism and 1970s media as well as for the way in which feminism is viewed today. Annie also tries to help her audience understand how the media shaped and continues to shape the agenda of (Second Wave) feminism. In order to do all of this, Annie gives an abrupt history of both Second Wave Feminism and the media, both subjects’ literature, and the history of Time and Life magazines. This allows for her audience to understand that impact that each might have on the public and what characteristics might be the source of tension between the three when presented in certain light. Annie, at the end of her presentation comes to a conclusion on whether or not (Second Wave) feminism has been successful and names solutions on how to improve its success. This argument will help me to structure the main point of my paper: that the media helped to create and reinforce the public’s negative view of women and feminism. The credibility of this source comes from the amount of peer review that had to be done before it was published as well as from the use of historical sources which cannot be falsified without serious consequences. Jones, Allison. Saints and Sirens: How Pop Culture Creates Female Icons. The HKU Honors Club. University of Hong Kong, 1 Aug. 1998. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/40445/1/FullText.pdf?accept=1>. Allison Jones attempts to show the categorization of women in the media as either saints or sirens by looking at four females in particular. She obtains the idea that within the life or after the death of an individual, particularly women, provoke different reactions from the public as a result of the media changing the images of the women to that of the public’s liking or distaste. She uses specific examples of what made the public show distaste or admiration for the women during their life or after their death. Using not only specific women but including what upset or pleased the public allows for the argument that Allison is making to be understood more clearly than it would if she gave general examples. The comparison between the women and what qualities they presented also serves to help enforce her argument. She reflects on the power of the media to capture an image that pertains to what they choose to portray about women and the lengths to which they go to portray such an image to the public. This article will help me to convey to my audience of the effort that the media goes through to uphold the inaccurate and over exaggerated descriptions of women’s’ behaviors and the intention of such behaviors that lead to the simplified naming of these women as either good or bad. It will serve to help me transition into how feminism has been easily disguised as a men-hating movement. The credibility of this article is the same as the credibility of the article from above.