#computermisuseact

[thechasefiles]

Explain to me how a full RAPE VICTIM’s report taken by the police got leaked to social media? Someone should be held accountable for this. Now the victim’s name, address & all her details etc is in the public’s domain. This could possibly make her a target 🎯 This can’t be right!! @thechasefiles #rape #victim #protection #computermisuseact https://www.instagram.com/p/CkEcjuppsaXUfShPemQ4wYrpTQ9jas0iavvZJk0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Should distributed denial of service attacks as a form of protest be legal?

Firstly, let us understand what a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack is. According to the Tech Terms online dictionary, it is “an effort to make one or more computer systems unavailable” accordingly, the attack “tells all coordinated systems to send a stream of requests to a specific server at the same time”. The attack is fairly easy to execute as it does not require any authorisation of the targeted site and works equally well on each site regardless of its security level. It requires the use of multiple computers to perform the attack. Imagine lots of tiny arrows being fired into the feet of a giant. It may slow down or even stop the giant temporarily, but it is an annoyance, rather than a critical attack.

In 2013, the infamous hacking collective Anonymous put forward a petition on a White House webpage claiming that DDoS attacks are a legitimate means of protest and that they are merely the online equivalent of non-violent sit-ins. Anonymous themselves stated that “with the advance in internet technology, comes new grounds for protesting”.* The group describes attacks as a means of online disruption which aims to “slow or halt a service.. for a short time.”*

So, does this relatively new form of protest have groundings in law? Under UK law, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.3 explicitly prohibits any acts which impair, hinders or prevents access to any computer or and software held therein. Unfortunately for Anonymous, this is the sole purpose of DDoS attacks.

How then do DDoSs stand up in relation to human rights, namely our right to protest? The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 11(1) describes some conditions of our freedom to assemble and associate. One of the foremost requirements is to act peacefully within this context. DDoS attacks appear to prima facie be peaceful and non-violent. They cause no direct harm and the intent is merely to momentarily disrupt. The simplicity, ease, and correlation with offline real-world protests make DDoS attacks somewhat appealing.

However, Article 11(2) lists the exceptions to the right. Here there exists a number of potential barriers to DDoS attacks. For instance, if the attacks were aimed at government organisations, the oh so fondly used (and sometimes abused) ’national security’ exception is likely to be wielded. Moreover, with the internet and technology becoming more and more enshrined in our daily lives, it would become easier to mould the exceptions to block the legality of DDoS attacks.

Should DDoS attacks be considered a legal form of protest? The difference with DDOSs is that when compared with the protests of the 20th century, rather than simply blocking a road, or a field, the protesters here are potentially halting a huge, overarching multinational system which is likely to cause a domino effect. This will therefore eventually undoubtedly run in line with many of the exceptions of Article 11(2) of the Convention. So the answer is no… not yet.

*Obtained from https://www.cnet.com/news/silicon-valleys-diversity-efforts-get-mired-in-scandal/

[tdwico]

Six months in prison and £25,000 order for ex employee who used an old colleague's log in to steal personal data

Read more here: https://www.univate.co.uk/six-months-in-prison-and-25k-order-for-former-worker-who-stole-personal-data

[terrierbyteit]

Evening all very late in the day I know but nevertheless here we go. D.Y.K That on August 29th 1990 The British Computer Misuse Act went into Effect?? One of the earliest laws anywhere designed to address computer fraud, the Act resulted from a long debate in the 1980s over failed prosecutions of hackers -- in one well-publicized case, two men hacked into a British Telecom computer leaving messages in the Duke of Edinburgh's private mailbox. 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 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" hackerslike 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. Based on the ELC's recommendations, a private member's bill was introduced by Conservative MP Michael Colvin. The bill, supported by the government, came into effect in 1990. Sections 1-3 of the Act introduced three criminal offences: 1. unauthorised access to computer material, punishable by 12 months' imprisonment (or 6 months in Scotland) and/or a fine "not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale" (since 2015, unlimited); 2. unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences, punishable by 12 months/maximum fine (or 6 months in Scotland) on summary convictionand/or 5 years/fine on indictment; 3. unauthorised modification of computer material, punishable by 12 months/maximum fine (or 6 months in Scotland) on summary conviction and/or 10 years/fine on indictment; #TerrierByteIT #Wifeidge . #computermisuseact #news #activism #politics #technology #arrest #online #1990 . #computerhistory

[thechasefiles]

Why people always sending allegations & want to be anonymous? Seriously no! Do not send them here. We have laws against mis-using the computer to defame & slander people. I am not posting nothing anonymously which involves allegations of criminal activity. Check those other blogs who do it but this ain’t the one!! Furthermore when you falsely accuse accuse you damage the reputation of others an action which is often irreparable. A word to the wise is enough. If you want to highlight a good deed - message me! If you need help - message me! If you want to help someone - message me! If you want to advertise your product or service - message me. Other than that DON’T MESSAGE ME!! #thechasefiles #noanonymousposts #notthisblog #computermisuseact #iwillblockanddeleteyou #dontmixme #ilikepeace #wehavelaws https://www.instagram.com/p/CYfDwYCpVFgCkSr9d1Df3LIw8fOOJHT6a_PNI40/?utm_medium=tumblr