The judge might be powerless. In the UK, and the US (and possibly other places) The jury has the power not to apply a bad law. I would guess that a mandatory minimum sentence far outweighing the crime would count as a bad law !
A quick search on altavista revealed this link for those interested in more information
I will be interested in how they enforce this world wide, since remotely disabeling software is certainly a prohibited in the UK by the computer misuse act 1990. I even recall a case where a company refused to pay a software development company. The software developer remotely disabled the software, and was successfuly prosecuted under section 3 of the computer misuse act.
As I understand it if a person from the US brought thier laptop into the UK, and had the software disabled remotely they they would be able to prosecute the software vendor.
Stephen
Section 3 of the computer misuse act follows:
Computer Misuse Act 1990 (UK) Section 3
3.(1) A Person is guilty of an offence if -
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and (b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing -
(a) to impair the operation of any computer; (b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or (c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
(3) The intent need not be directed at -
(a) any particular computer; (b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or (c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.
(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.
(6) For the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable -
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
I second this request, but I would also like to see my overall score (or possibly total score / number of posts). This would give a good overview of what people think of my posts - and the chances of me ever making moderator:)
Slashdot Mirror
The judge might be powerless. In the UK, and the US (and possibly other places) The jury has the power not to apply a bad law. I would guess that a mandatory minimum sentence far outweighing the crime would count as a bad law !
A quick search on altavista revealed this link for those interested in more information
www.buildfreedom.com/tl/ffp04.shtml
Stephen
I will be interested in how they enforce this world wide, since remotely disabeling software is certainly a prohibited in the UK by the computer misuse act 1990. I even recall a case where a company refused to pay a software development company. The software developer remotely disabled the software, and was successfuly prosecuted under section 3 of the computer misuse act.
As I understand it if a person from the US brought thier laptop into the UK, and had the software disabled remotely they they would be able to prosecute the software vendor.
Stephen
Section 3 of the computer misuse act follows:
Computer Misuse Act 1990 (UK) Section 3
3.(1) A Person is guilty of an offence if -
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the
contents of any computer; and
(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the
requisite knowledge.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an
intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so
doing -
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any
computer; or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any
such data.
(3) The intent need not be directed at -
(a) any particular computer;
(b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any
particular kind; or
(c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular
kind.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is
knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.
(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised
modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in
subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely
temporary.
(6) For the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of
the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any
computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer
or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable -
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to
both; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
I second this request, but I would also like to see my overall score (or possibly total score / number of posts). This would give a good overview of what people think of my posts - and the chances of me ever making moderator :)