Black boxes in Canada

[David Swarbrick]

It got a lot more complicated than that for a while. Yes, you couldn't
deceive machine, and also many deceptions do not involve any appropriation
of property belonging to another. There is either no formal property -
perhaps only a bank balance, and/or ownership is transferred at the same
time.

I forget the cases now. There was one went to the House of Lords which
settled many of the difficulties. Truth is that in an increasingly complex
world, people find all sorts of new things to do which we (might) want to
think criminal, but which stretch the existing law.


David Swarbrick, www.lawindexpro.co.uk
david.swarbrick@lawindexpro.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1484 384767
lawindexpro - where case law finds a home

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Pete Chown
> Sent: 29 August 2002 23:21
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Black boxes in Canada
>
>
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> >         computer-related fraud
> >             there's a problem with Fraud in the UK since you cannot
> >             mislead a machine
>
> Is this hole not plugged by the CMA?  One of the offences in the CMA is
> unauthorised use of a computer with intent to commit theft.
>
> IMHO R. v. Gold and Schifreen (the case about deceiving computers) was
> decided correctly.  As a matter of common sense, you can't deceive a
> machine because it isn't capable of forming an opinion about anything.
> I could imagine this giving rise to all sorts of odd issues in practice,
> as courts attempted to figure out exactly how a lie needed to be
> expressed in order for a machine to be "deceived".
>
> >         jurisdiction
> >             all offences must apply to nationals even though the offence
> >             takes place abroad
>
> That sounds odd, why don't they ask for extradition in that situation?
> They have the right to, apparently:
>
> >         extradition
> >             all the (serious) offences need to be included into all
> >             extradition treaties
>
> --
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>