Computer Misuse (Amendement) Bill

[Ben Laurie]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> * This seems to me to be massively overbroad.  It includes any
> degradation of performance, not just serious or total loss of service.
> You commit the offence even if the performace degradation is a
> side-effect of some legitimate effect.
> 
> 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]' - namely, it reduces the mail-sending
> performance of the affected sending sites.  Since I'm not the owner of
> those systems, and I don't have (at least in some cases) their
> permission to slow their computer down in this way, I would appear to
> be committing this offence.  Surely not ?  Am I then legally mandated
> to have my mail-receiving software respond promptly ?
> 
> I'm sure ukcrypto readers can think of other examples.

Sure. Fetching a page from a webserver causes a degradation of
performance. Duh. So does sending email. We are all about to be
criminals.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff