Page 5318 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Like any other property owner, an owner of a computer has a right to use it without interference from unauthorised sources. Also, might one add, it is not only a question of personal ownership; it is a question of either a self-standing or network computer in an office where people are connected to other people working in that facility.
The activities of hackers are not just a game of wits with owners or users. Unauthorised access can have potentially disastrous consequences. At the very least, it causes unnecessary expense in necessitating that the computer system be checked for possible damage. Hackers might also introduce so-called viruses into computer systems. May I thank whoever it is who recently introduced the SAM system into our computers in this building.
Unauthorised access to computers is an anti-social activity which must be curtailed by applying criminal sanctions. Existing property offences are not readily compatible with advanced computer-age technology. These laws, presumably, were written when we could not have imagined what modern computers involved. Therefore, this Government has acted quickly to clarify the uncertainties of the present law by creating two new offences specifically aimed at deterring unauthorised access to computers.
One prohibits unauthorised access to computers and is in principle similar to other trespass offences. The other criminalises malicious damage to data stored in a computer and unwarranted interference with the use of a computer. I again raise the question about someone who does it, if you like, in all innocence. Applying criminal sanctions at the access stage should do much to deter subsequent criminal conduct involving computers.
These offences will complement the existing offence in section 115A of the New South Wales Crimes Act as it applies in the Territory, which prohibits the dishonest use of a computer. Mr Connolly has referred to that. These amendments to the criminal law are necessary to ensure that the law keeps pace with technological advances and reflects the needs of the community at large. Hackers, despite what some might regard as the romantic image of the anti-authority outlaw that is sometimes given to them, pose a very great threat to the use of computers and the benefits which they bring. This Bill will do much to redress the situation. I commend it to the Assembly.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (11.48), in reply: I will anticipate some of the detailed debate just to see whether we can settle some of the issues, and then see whether Mr Connolly presses the amendment. The first thing I want to say about this piece of legislation is that it does pick up, as I mentioned in my introductory speech, a decision of the Government to complement the Commonwealth legislation. That might answer Mr Connolly's first point. Certainly, our offences cover the same ground as New South Wales and the Commonwealth, but only in a slightly varied form.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .