Computer Misuse (Amendement) Bill

[Bill Thompson]

Ian points out various flaws with the amendments to the CMA, not
the least of which is that 
> 
> For example: my anti-spam SMTP server SAUCE [1] deliberately delays
> responding to erroneous SMTP instructions from machines trying to send
> it mail.  It does this for a number of reasons mainly to do with
> fighting spam (but also for slowing down endless loops).
> 
> However, it's clear that doing this `causes ... an impairmant of
> function ... of a [computer]'

I remember taking this issue up with Michael Colvin, the MP who sponsored
the original CMA (it was a private members bill) when I interviewed
him about his bill. I pointed out that since it didn't actually
specify what a 'computer' was, if I was at a friend's house and 
reprogrammed their video I'd be in technical breach of the criminal
law. His view was that case law would provide... so it may be
that Ian has to have his day in court to clarify the meaning of the
recent amendment.

However it should be pointed out that the lack of clarity in the existing
CMA has almost certainly resulted in _fewer_ prosecutions, perhaps by
forcing the police or CPS to be quite sure of their ground before they
proceed.

Bill Thompson