Neil Barrett

Chances are that a lot of people reading this column are competent programmers, able to read code and work out what programs should be doing. The syntax indicates how the various statements are to be understood, and there's not a lot of mystery to how the "if-then-else" and "while-condition-do-statement" constructions actually work.

I've always been fascinated by the combination of syntax and semantics - whether in a program, an essay or a formula. But perhaps the most fascinating types of construction, because of the impact they have on our lives, are found in the legal environment.

These constructions are the laws that govern, criminalise and punish various mischiefs - and the peculiarly precise syntax of well-drafted legal statements can result in wonderfully enlightening analyses of just what was meant. But sometimes there are gloriously entertaining results as to what the drafters didn't mean but have accidentally included.

Let me give you an example. In the US there have been recent moves to criminalise those who undertake research and development to bypass the security mechanisms on music and video files. The idea, of course, is to protect the copyright holders from exploitation - but the result is that entirely non-criminal but private research into security weaknesses is stifled.

Those of us who grew up with the philosophy of open source and full disclosure rather regret the more draconian measures across the Atlantic. And we satisfy ourselves with the observation that "it won't happen here" - us Brits are more sensible than that.

But are we? A close reading of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 might be in order. Look in particular at Section 1: "A person is guilty of an offence if a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case."

So, "causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to... any computer." Interesting, isn't it? The function can be performed on any computer, including one to which you have authorised access - such as your own. If you perform any function on your own computer, with the intention to break into another computer, then you have committed a section 1 offence.

In practical terms, this was written to criminalise hackers who run exploits on their own PCs while connected to a target system. But of course, a "function" could well be the writing of that exploit, or running a web browser to find information about it, or even writing a document or email explaining how it is to be done.

We don't need a special law like the Americans; our far-sighted drafters of the law back in 1990 had already thought of it, even though I'm sure they didn't know what exactly it was they were doing.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!