Computer Misuse Act 1990
|
|
| Long title | An Act to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1990 (c. 18) |
| Introduced by | Michael Colvin |
| Territorial extent | England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 29 June 1990 |
| Commencement | 29 August 1990 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by |
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, Police and Justice Act 2006 and Serious Crime Act 2015 |
|
Status: Amended
|
|
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Revised text of statute as amended | |
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced partly in response to the decision in R v Gold & Schifreen (1988) 1 AC 1063 (see below). Critics of the bill complained that it was introduced hastily and was poorly thought out.Intention, they said, was often difficult to prove, and that the bill inadequately differentiated "joyriding" hackers like Gold and Schifreen from serious computer criminals. The Act has nonetheless become a model from which several other countries, including Canada and the Republic of Ireland, have drawn inspiration when subsequently drafting their own information security laws, as it is seen "as a robust and flexible piece of legislation in terms of dealing with cybercrime”. Several amendments have been passed to keep the Act up to date.
Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold, using conventional home computers and modems in late 1984 and early 1985, gained unauthorised access to British Telecom's Prestel interactive viewdata service. While at a trade show, Schifreen by doing what latterly became known as shoulder surfing, had observed the password of a Prestel engineer: the username was 1234 and the password was 22222222. This later gave rise to subsequent accusations that BT had not taken security seriously. Armed with this information, the pair explored the system, even gaining access to the personal message box of Prince Philip.
Prestel installed monitors on the suspect accounts and passed information thus obtained to the police. The pair were charged under section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 with defrauding BT by manufacturing a "false instrument", namely the internal condition of BT's equipment after it had processed Gold's eavesdropped password. Tried at Southwark Crown Court, they were convicted on specimen charges (five against Schifreen, four against Gold) and fined, respectively, £750 and £600.
...
Wikipedia