Being safe on the internet (was Re: Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?)
peter at pmsommer.com
Wed Aug 4 12:18:34 BST 2010
What an astonishing level of interest in a case from 2005 that doesn't
really set a precedent!
My PDF is of an article for "Computers and Law" and had to be of limited
Daniel Cuthbert's aim in executing the directory traversal was not
simply to truncate the URL to explore the website (which would have been
legitimate) but to explore the computer holding the webserver (which
was not). The court decided that he must have known at the time he did
it that this action was not authorised - thus s 1 CMA is satisfied.
Any appeal would have had to be on the basis either that the judge was
wrong in law or that he reached a conclusion on the facts that no
reasonable judge could have made.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I am simply reporting what the court decided)
On 04/08/2010 11:53, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> Adrian Hayter wrote:
>>> Yes, I certainly confused the two. What exactly does the "/../" syntax
>>> do, and why does it matter to the host? (The article you link isn't
>>> explicit enough for me to follow.)
More information about the ukcrypto