header-logo header-logo

01 February 2007 / Stefan Fafinski
Issue: 7258 / Categories: Features , Technology
printer mail-detail

Cyber crime

Can legislation keep pace with technological developments? asks Stefan Fafinski

DPP v Lennon [2006] EWHC 1201 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 147 (May) neatly illustrates the shortcomings of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA 1990) and its seeming inability to keep pace with technological development (see 156 NLJ 7248, p 1712). Lennon concerned so-called ‘denial-of-service’ attacks in which information technology systems are overwhelmed with data, leaving them running slowly or utterly disabled.

Fortune teller’s view

CMA 1990 came about as a result of difficulties with the pre-existing law as it was stretched to encompass previously un-encountered mischief resulting from technological advances. Ironically, and perhaps unsurprisingly, 16 years on it suffered similar problems of scope. CMA 1990 was originally drafted with a fortune teller’s view of how computers might be attacked, with no possible foresight concerning technology’s evolution and potential application to cause harm. There have been three attempts to introduce amendment Bills to update CMA 1990 in response to public and industry concern about denial-of-service attacks. These Bills generally failed for lack of Parliamentary time.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll