Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Breaching an AUP a Crime In Western Australia

Posted by timothy on from the saw-it-in-wargames dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A recent court case highlights that breaching an acceptable use policy at work could land you in court in Western Australia: a police officer doing a search of the police database for a friend was fined — not for disclosing confidential police information, but for unlawful use of a 'restricted-access computer system' — cracking. More worryingly for West Australians, this legal blog points out that breaching any Acceptable Use Policy would seem to be enough to land you in jail for cracking — for example, using your internet connection to break copyright."

9 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. I don't see a problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm authorized to use the computer at work to search through medial records (I'm an Pharm.D), but I can get in trouble (and fined) for searching HIPAA records without cause.

    1. Re:I don't see a problem with this by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly.

      Almost nothing in this article suggests a vendor's AUP is the topic under discussion.

      The guy was using a police database for pete sake. These things are always governed by special rules and regulations just like HIPAA.

      Unlawful use of a 'restricted-access computer system' is not the same as an AUP issue. Once the system is covered or by a legal "Restricted-Access" designation its not an AUP.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:I don't see a problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The problem here, is that this person is a police officer, yet he is being charged with a crime. Being a police officer is very demanding, and the same rules can not apply to them.

    3. Re:I don't see a problem with this by Lorens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being a police officer is very demanding. The same rules can not apply to them. The rules are stricter for them.

      There, corrected that for you.

  2. And that's why US law is different. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So far, the courts in the U.S. have ruled against such an idea, because in effect it would let companies define the law for themselves, at whim.

    1. Re:And that's why US law is different. by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      How could breach of contract EVER be a crime?? It is a breach of contract, not a violation of a law, when you breach a contract you get the consequences listed in the contract, or if you refuse them a civil law suit, but not a fine and not a prison sentence.

  3. Pretty sure article/summary is overboard by rrossman2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's no different than having access to a system tied into say patient records. There's no need or reason for you to go looking at information on someone else who you aren't treating or don't have permission to look at (for example in the US you have to sign papers for doctors to transfer your medical records etc to another doctors office).

    I think the article is extrapolating something to include everything, where it shouldn't

  4. Malicious or stupid. Or both. by SpeedyDX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA says right off the bat that in the case in question, Giles v Douglas, was charged under a CRIMINAL statute. Giles was granted special permission under certain specific conditions to use the police database. She did not adhere to those conditions and thus her use of the database was impermissible. Impermissible use of the database is a criminal offence (instance of s440). There's nothing special about this case.

    Breaching the AUP is not a crime. Breaching the AUP in a manner that leads to committing a crime is also not a crime. BUT COMMITTING A CRIME IS A CRIME! It just so happens that an AUP is involved in the details of this case.

  5. Huh? What's the problem? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another misuse of the "Your Rights Online" tag and there are already a metric crap-tonne of morons saying that this is awful. It's a blog post that completely misses the fucking point. If wikileaks had reported that Australian police were allowed to look up information on citizens without a valid reason (i.e. for shits and giggles) everyone would be up in arms saying, "Isn't this terrible?". This isn't just a breach of an Acceptable Use Policy, it's against the law, for some very fucking good reasons. There are laws and procedures in place to stop simple invasions of privacy (like this) but also to stop criminals from bribing corrupt Police Officers to look up information for them.