Page 5317 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1990 creates new specific criminal offences related to unauthorised access to computers. Unauthorised access, whether by an employee exceeding his or her authority or by an outsider using a personal computer and the telephone network, is a matter of concern to the community. I personally would be very worried, too, about almost accidental involvement with a computer, but that is another matter. It is a concern that is not limited to business and governments which use computers. Very few of us would not have some private and personal information about ourselves stored on some computer somewhere. We are all concerned about the security and integrity of that information. Naturally, we want only authorised people to have access to it. We all remember the tremendous fuss about the so-called Australia Card, and now we have the tax file numbers.
As my colleague, the Attorney-General, pointed out when he presented this Bill, information in computers is peculiarly vulnerable to unauthorised intrusion. Of course, this is a problem in any office where a number of people are using a computer. Simple physical barriers such as a locked door do not secure computer records in the same way that they would protect paper records. The widespread use of sophisticated personal computers and advanced communications technology have given perpetrators of anti-social acts a degree of hitherto unimagined or unattainable power. This technological power allows a person invisibly, remotely and rapidly to commit anti-social acts with a confidence that he or she will not be caught easily.
Of course, computer owners can do a lot to enhance the security of their systems, and most do - by passwords, et cetera. The major banks, in particular, devote some resources to maintaining the security and integrity of their computer systems; but, as we know, they get caught out. Not even the most sophisticated electronic security devices can keep the determined hacker at bay for long. I recognise that distinction that Mr Connolly makes between the hacker operating outside and someone intervening in the computer inside.
In any case, complicated security measures may actually inconvenience authorised users and defeat one of the primary benefits of computers, namely, easy access to information. Certainly, speaking for computer users at the level of the Macintosh, I would be very distressed if Macintosh had to create all sorts of complicated ways to prevent people getting into the computer and using it effectively. This is where the criminal law must support the private efforts of computer owners. As the Attorney-General has said before, there is no justification for interfering with a computer belonging to someone else.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .