{"id":32989,"date":"2020-01-22T16:06:14","date_gmt":"2020-01-22T16:06:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.threatshub.org\/blog\/academics-call-for-uks-computer-misuse-act-1990-to-be-reformed\/"},"modified":"2020-01-22T16:06:14","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T16:06:14","slug":"academics-call-for-uks-computer-misuse-act-1990-to-be-reformed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.threatshub.org\/blog\/academics-call-for-uks-computer-misuse-act-1990-to-be-reformed\/","title":{"rendered":"Academics call for UK’s Computer Misuse Act 1990 to be reformed"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Britain’s main anti-hacker law, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, is “confused”, “outdated” and “ambiguous”, according to a group of pro-reform academics.<\/p>\n

A report launched this morning by the Criminal Law Reform Now Network (CLRNN) described a “range of measures to better tailor existing offences in line with our international obligations and other modern legal systems” in a call for the 30-year-old Act to be overhauled.<\/p>\n

CLRNN mostly consists of academics from the University of Birmingham. In its report (PDF<\/a>), the network described the current Act as “preventing cyber security professionals from carrying out threat intelligence research against cyber criminals and geo-political threat actors”, something it said is “leaving the UK’s critical national infrastructure at increased risk”.<\/p>\n

Broadly, the network calls for new public interest defences for infosec professionals, academics and journalists as well as specific guidance for prosecutors and sentencing judges alike.<\/p>\n

It also calls for the introduction of civil penalties for computer misuse naughtiness (mischief, in the legal jargon), with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner being suggested as a civil “regulator” to decide who should and should not be slapped with a civil fine.<\/p>\n

Down in the detail<\/span><\/h3>\n

The CLRNN’s specific recommendations are:<\/p>\n