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.