[WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article

[Phil Nash]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> andrewrturvey at googlemail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an
>>> unauthorized modification to computer data which impairing the
>>> reliability of the data>>
>>
>> -----------
>>
>> "Unauthorized" implies that there is an "authorized".
>> As far as Wikipedia is concerned I'm not sure we have an authority
>> who is granting rights to make particular changes.

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here; Section 1 of the 1990 Act (about 
which I have written extensively) criminalises "unauthorised access, knowing 
this is unauthorised".

Our mantra, "This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" would seem to be 
a perfect defence, if not on the actual point of "authority", certainly on 
the point of the requisite state of mind. The position is somewhat different 
for users who have been specifically blocked and/or banned, but as yet, we 
haven't felt it necessary to consider criminal proceedings, although one or 
two obvious cases spring to mind.

The other considerations are (1) whether the Police and Crown Prosecution 
Service would think it a good idea to spend much public money on what is a 
summary offence, triable only by magistrates, and with a maximum sentence of 
six months imprisonment (and not the five years previously mentioned; that 
is reserved for fraudulent purposes), and (2) whether the media would not 
see such action by us as nut-cracking by sledgehammer and pillory us for 
taking disproportionate action. Arguably counter-productive in the wrong 
hands, perhaps.