dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/04/83)
The following is the text of the draft amendments to the Criminal Code
(Canada) relating to computer crime. My comments appear in a separate
article. Words in [square brackets] are added by me.
301.2 (1) Every one who, fraudlently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer
service,
(b) by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical
or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted,
directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system, or
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a
computer system with intent to commit an offense under paragraph
(a) or (b) or an offence under section 387 in relation to data
or a computer system [mischief - see below -DS],
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for
ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
[prosecutor's choice; summary conviction is max. $500 fine, six months
in jail. -DS].
(2) In this section,
"computer program" means data representing instructions
or statements that, when executed in a computer system,
causes the computer system to perform a function;
"computer service" includes data processing and the storage
or retrieval of data;
"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected
or related devices one or more of which,
(a) contains computer programs or other data, and
(b) pursuant to computer programs,
(i) performs logic and control, and
(ii) may perform any other function;
"data" means representations of information or of concepts
that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable
for use in a computer system;
"electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" means
any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used
to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include
a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not
better than normal hearing;
"function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, communication,
storage and retrieval;
"intercept" has the same meaning as in section 178.1.
178.1 [section dealing with telephone wiretapping]
"intercept" includes listen to, record or acquire a
communications or acquire the substance, meaning or
purport thereof;
387(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful
use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in
the lawful use of data or denies access to data to
any person who is entitled to access thereto.
387(5) Everyone who commits mischief in relation to data
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
[max. $500 and six months -DS].
Dave Sherman
--
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davepadpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell[Admin]) (10/06/83)
According to my legal eagle, this legislation would be absolutely unenforcable. He would be willing to fight a test case any day. Mutters something about same type of legislation being used for eavesdropping and says that nobody has been convicted and that no prosecutions have been made since 1880. Patrick Powell
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/07/83)
Patrick, I would like to hear why your "legal eagle" says that the
Criminal Code amendments would be unenforceable. Is he referring to
the Charter of Rights? Except for the Bill of Rights and the Charter
of Rights, nothing really stands in the way of legislation being
enforceable, as long as it is consitutionally within the power
of the legislating authority. Since this stuff is clearly aimed at
crime and criminal law is within the jurisdiction of the federal govern-
ment, I don't really see a problem there.
I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific.
Of course, it's quite likely that the law wouldn't be enforced
in practise. That goes for lots of our criminal laws. The very
fact it's on the books is enough to deter the most serious cases.
Dave Sherman
--
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davepadpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell[Admin]) (10/14/83)
When he says "enforcable," he means "If they arrest you, and charge you under the section of the criminal code, then it is my *expert* opinion that the Crown would have no case." I gather from this little jargon filled saying, that If I go to jail or pay a fine, I can rip his guts out. Patrick Powell