Define Harrassment
Q: i have to say i find this argument extremely dodgy. i'd like somebody to
explain it in a bit more logical depth before i dismiss it. The computer
misuse act, whilst undoubtedly IMO applicable to ISP's which should be
using it more fully, surely can't be apllied to individual computers
with regard to spam, whether we want it to or not. it was never intended
to. When i dial up and request my local ISP to download e-mails and
other news items it has stored on it's servers, the ISP, never mind the
spammer, can't in any real sense of the word be said to be 'accessing'
my computer. And any alterations to the data it has on it are surely
covered by the fact that _I'm_ making the connection and request to the
ISP?
i don't have the slightest desire to "punish speech", but I am as
adamant that *I* have the right to define what is acceptable use of my
computer as I am certain that I have the right to decide who is allowed
to scribble on the wall behind the computer. It is as unacceptable to
harass me with junk email as it would be to enter my home and write an
advert on the wall. It is *not* a matter of content.
As i believe Brad has implied on several occasions, harrasment is not
acceptable.
It seems sensible thoguh that harrasment on-line should be dealt with by
adapting harrasment laws rather than trying to add yet another issue to
the already murky list with which are faced in dealing with UBE/UCE.
A:I said it confirmed my right
to control access to my computer. And if you read the Act you'll see
that "access" is defined fairly widely as "causing a computer (but not
any particular computer) to perform any function with intent to secure
access to any program or data". Sending email, even through MX relays,
is as much "access" as telnetting in and giving the commands
interactively.
It's clear that some email I've had is in clear breach of the Protection
from Harassment Act - I've received two copies of the same email, to the
same address, with no conceivable relevance to me, it can only have been
sent to annoy. (The Act defines the offence of harassment as doing what
one knows, or ought to know, is harassment on at least two occassions.)
The problem is that to *prove* the offence and to identify the source,
whether for criminal or civil proceedings, is too difficult to make it
worthwhile.
"Intent" is at the basis