PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAW

Crimes Amendment (No 6)
_______________________________________________________________________

The proposed new law repeals all the old offences and introduces new definitions.  In particular it focuses on new computer crimes.  This Bill has had its second reading.  Rather than taking you through the amendments in detail, here are some general comments about the new offences.

There are four categories of offending.

Dishonest Access

First, offences for dishonestly accessing computers where the offender either tries to or actually obtains some advantage or information.

The definition of access is not limited to active steps taken by a hacker, but also includes the passive receiving of data.  So, for example, in the case of Back Orifice infection, once the victim computer had been infected it would send out a signal on the Internet saying “Hello I’m infected with Back Orifice!”  This signal would go out every time the person logged on to the Internet.  Anyone who had the right back of Back Orifice programme could then receive the signal, not just Mr Garrett.

Mr Garrett could be charged under section 250(1) - accessing a system and obtaining passwords; as could Mr Misic-accessing a system to obtain a benefit, namely, free toll calls.

Damage or interference

The damaging or interfering provision where danger to life results, affects offenders not only where the offender knew danger to life would result, but ought to have known.  Once again Mr Garrett could be charged with interfering or impairing data by infecting the victim computer with Back Orifice. 

Software for committing crime

This is where the person offers for sale or supply or has in possession software for committing crime.

Unauthorised Access

This covers your hacker who accesses a system to prove it’s insecure.  It also applies to employees who do not have permission to access a system.  Interestingly, however, it does not apply to employee given permission to access system for purposes of contacting customers, and instead copies customer list with intent to set up in competition. 

The exceptions to the unauthorised access are the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communication Security Bureau.  The Act permits those organisations to be exempt from liability providing they were using an interception warrant or search warrant.

Finally, in respect of intercepting communications, it will now be an offence to intercept not only oral but also written communications and to disclose those communications.

Conclusion

The current law has shown a willingness to adapt to new changes in technology, as evidenced by the expanding definition of “document”.

It cannot however, cover the wide range of computer related misuse and for this reason amendments are needed.