Consultant Convicted For Non-Invasive Site Access

Phillip P Barnett writes "Security consultant Daniel Cuthbert worried that he'd been stung by a phishing scam when he donated to a Tsunami relief effort in London, UK. He was convicted for hacking and lost his job after running a couple of checks on the website in question." From the article: "During the trial, Cuthbert's defence argued that any unauthorised access was entirely innocent. In evidence it was shown that he had attempted to access the tsunami donations site on two occasions and the site's security systems had denied him access. The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." ZDNet also has a commentary piece on what this decision may mean for the future of cybercrime.

Comments

Unintended consequence of regulation and control

[dada21]

UK lawlessness, nothing new?

The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.

This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.

TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.

Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.