3 ms·

A link is text, a link does not cause any computer to perform any action, a link does not even "connect" to any computer. It's static data. With proper softwa

A link is text, a link does not cause any computer to perform any action, a link does not even "connect" to any computer. It's static data. With proper software "activating" e.g. clicking on a link to uk mail's website may or may not cause one of their computers to perform some function. If anything you'd need a license to click links, not make them. Unless there's even crazier "contributory computer performance" language in that Legislative Misuse Act of 1990

jdietrich 17y ago
One does not need to "connect" to a computer to commit an offence under the act. One does not even need to use a computer. Consider, for instance, an attacker writing out a paper form with an SQL injection, knowing that the form will be OCRed into a database that does not sanitise it's inputs. Nothing but graphite on paper, but clearly computer misuse under the act. I don't agree with the law as it stands, but the law was clearly designed to cover every possible circumstance of unauthorised access to a computer system. As an analogy, imagine yourself walking down a shopping street. You have tacit permission to walk through any of the open shop doors, but that permission ends at the "no entry" sign on the stockroom door. Walking beyond a "no entry" sign is trespass because you are aware that you do not have permission to enter such a place. Likewise with authorisation to access a computer system. Your right to connect to the system ends at the point where the system tells you to go no further.
- njharman 17y ago
  Your analogy does not follow from your description. "One does not need to "connect"", "Your right to connect..." A more apt analogy (of a link) would be posting instructions (or a floorplan/map) of how to get to the stockroom. I can believe the statute covers that. The US DRM Copyright law does similar.

jdietrich 17y ago

One does not need to "connect" to a computer to commit an offence under the act. One does not even need to use a computer. Consider, for instance, an attacker writing out a paper form with an SQL injection, knowing that the form will be OCRed into a database that does not sanitise it's inputs. Nothing but graphite on paper, but clearly computer misuse under the act. I don't agree with the law as it stands, but the law was clearly designed to cover every possible circumstance of unauthorised access to a computer system. As an analogy, imagine yourself walking down a shopping street. You have tacit permission to walk through any of the open shop doors, but that permission ends at the "no entry" sign on the stockroom door. Walking beyond a "no entry" sign is trespass because you are aware that you do not have permission to enter such a place. Likewise with authorisation to access a computer system. Your right to connect to the system ends at the point where the system tells you to go no further.

njharman 17y ago
Your analogy does not follow from your description. "One does not need to "connect"", "Your right to connect..." A more apt analogy (of a link) would be posting instructions (or a floorplan/map) of how to get to the stockroom. I can believe the statute covers that. The US DRM Copyright law does similar.