header-logo header-logo

Cyber crime

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll