Andrew Turvey wrote:
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I think this would be more a section 3 offense (unauthorized modification) rather than section 1 (unauthorized access). Could there be a case here?
The problem is that the *unauthorised modification* under section 3 must be with "intent to degrade its operation", and this is a vague proposition which I don't think is intended to cover vandalism. The offence covers, for example, modification of access rights such that certain users are unable to use the computer, and the introduction of viruses or worms. The intention need not be directed at any particular computer, so this covers the situation where a hacker uses the computer as an innocent "zombie" to transmit malicious software to other computers. So I don't think it applies to our servers. We have defences already against malicious attacks.
I think it is arguable that although editors are encouraged to edit
- as you said, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - they are
encouraged to edit within the parameters of the policies set down. It would be more clear cut if someone vandalized after being warned
- that may be a clearer indication that they knew their modification
was unauthorized.
Well, any Level 1 warning includes a pointer to our most important policies, and the effect of ignoring friendly warnings is escalation to more stringent ones. However, my opinion that the prosecuting authorities would be reluctant to act remains.
Articles like Rod Liddle's do huge amounts of damage to us - they encourage people to think that vandalism is normal and acceptable and that we don't care about the accuracy of our encyclopedia. I think it would do wonders for our credibility and reputation - not to mention cutting down on vandalism - if a few vandals were taken through the courts.
My impression of Rod Liddle is that he is talking to people who either don't understand what he is talking about, and if they do, don't have the expertise to do anything about it, or don't care. Basically, he's talking to himself.
In terms of whether the CPS would prosecute - probably not, but a high profile caution would do as good a job from our point of view.
Cautions don't tend to get publicised.