Competition body wants hackers prosecuted

This is the relevant portion of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 2002...

CYBER CRIME
Definition

85. In this Chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise-

"access" includes the actions of a person who, after taking note of any data, becomes aware of the fact that he or she is not authorised to access that data and still continues to access that data.

Unauthorised access to, interception of or interference with data

86. (1) Subject to the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act, 1992 (Act No. 127 of 1992), a person who intentionally accesses or intercepts any data without authority or permission to do so, is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who intentionally and without authority to do so, interferes with data in a way which causes such data to be modified, destroyed or otherwise rendered ineffective, is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who unlawfully produces, sells, offers to sell, procures for use, designs, adapts for use, distributes or possesses any device, including a computer program or a component, which is designed primarily to overcome security measures for the protection of data, or performs any of those acts with regard to a password, access code or any other similar kind of data with the intent to unlawfully utilise such item to contravene this section, is guilty of' an offence.

(4) A person who utilises any device or computer program mentioned in subsection (3) in order to unlawfully overcome security measures designed to protect such data or access thereto, is guilty of an offence.

(5) A person who commits any act described in this section with the intent to interfere with access to an information system so as to constitute a denial, including a partial denial, of service to legitimate users is guilty of an offence.

Computer-related extortion, fraud and forgery

87. (1) A person who performs or threatens to perform any of the acts described in section 86, for the purpose of obtaining any unlawful proprietary advantage by undertaking to cease or desist from such action, or by undertaking to restore any damage caused as a result of those actions, is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who performs any of the acts described in section 86 for the purpose of obtaining any unlawful advantage by causing fake data to be produced with the intent that it be considered or acted upon as if it were authentic, is guilty of an offence.
Click to expand...
 
Can anybody post for me....

1) What the Competition Commission Website has on that download page saying that there is "protected information" in that document.
2) What the document itself says about the information being restricted.

and has that information changed since this whole story broke.

In other words... what warnings and restrictions were in place when this document was first made available?
 
Necuno said:
cool so whats an offence.... :eek::p
Click to expand...

Penalties

89. (1) A person convicted of an offence referred to in sections 37(3), 40(2), 58(2), 80(5), 82(2) or 86(1), (2) or (3) is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months.

(2) A person convicted of an offence referred to in section 86(4) or (5) or section 87 is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.
Click to expand...

but remember that it can be shown that there were mitigating factors. That is why I want to know what restrictions were in place before. It might also be shown that uncensoring the document was in the public interest. It may also be proved that no obligation to protect the information existed between the public and the banking sector.
 
Of relevance also is this....

"cryptography product" means any product that makes use of cryptographic techniques and is used by a sender or recipient of data messages for the purposes of ensuring-

1. that such data can be accessed only by relevant persons;
2. the authenticity of the data;
3. the integrity of the data; or
4. that the source of the data can be correctly ascertained;

"cryptography provider" means any person who provides or who proposes to provide cryptography services or products in the Republic;

"cryptography service" means any service which is provided to a sender or a recipient of a data message or to anyone storing a data message, and which is designed to facilitate the use of cryptographic techniques for the purpose of ensuring-

1. that such data or data message can be accessed or can be put into an intelligible form only by certain persons;
2. that the authenticity or integrity of such data or data message is capable of being ascertained;
3. the integrity of the data or data message; or
4. that the source of the data or data message can be correctly ascertained; "cyber inspector" means an inspector referred to in Chapter XII;
Click to expand...

1) Is the CC a certified or registered cryptography provider or specialist?
2) Is the format that the CC used to provide the document (a PDF file) a "cryptographic" format? Is it secure? Was it used properly?
3) Did the CC use reasonable measures and sufficient warnings to establish that there existed restrictions on the information contained in the document.
4) Which person or persons at the CC were assigned the task of securing the document? Did they follow the correct procedure in securing the document? Can they be held liable for failing to secure the document?

The makers or producers of the security measures used by the CC (Adobe PDF) can be contacted and asked to provide...

1) Assurance that their format is a "secure" or "cryptographic" product.
2) That the client used the correct procedure in securing the document using their product.

and also... Was the offending party "the hacker"...

1) aware that he was not entitled to access certain portions of the document?
2) aware that he was circumventing security measures by opening or converting the document?
3) circumventing the document for financial gain? for denial of access? for any other reason? What was his motive? To give others financial gain?
 
Garyvdh said:
Can anybody post for me....

1) What the Competition Commission Website has on that download page saying that there is "protected information" in that document.
2) What the document itself says about the information being restricted.

and has that information changed since this whole story broke.

In other words... what warnings and restrictions were in place when this document was first made available?
Click to expand...

1. Nothing I can see. I have the page 4 days after the "issue" and there is nothing there I can see. There are STILL no "Terms and Conditions" or the like on the page at this time.
2. Nothing I can see in the Disclaimer, Contents or Introduction, and if it is not in those, you are already reading LOL! ( Original files - I have not checked current files ).
3. The names of the PDFs have been changed slightly - the insertion of "- " between the number and the section title, at least one other minor change.

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Ja, I don't see anything on the web page or in the document itself proscribing access to that information. Where did the CC warn people that they were not entitled to access that information?
 
Garyvdh said:
Ja, I don't see anything on the web page or in the document itself proscribing access to that information. Where did the CC warn people that they were not entitled to access that information?
Click to expand...

Not anywhere I can see, other than the "clue" of text being blacked out if your text colour is black.
 
More of the pissing sessions from Fin24

Finally I get a mention :rolleyes:

meilkon

You are right Shake and Bake, you have your view of rudolph muller, and I have mine. I expect though that your glowing view of the man is at least partially informed by the free flight/trip/hotel he paid for and gave you late last year
Click to expand...
 
LoL more Skeptism from Fin24

emporer

Jan 08 2009 11:11
Report this comment
http://www.***kerlakker.com best describes mybroadband.co.za for those of you interested in finding out more about the business Mr Rudolph Muller runs. He fancies My Broadband as a consumer/activist forum when in fact it is a badly managed and run news portal. hence real news appears on fin24.com. The very companies Mr Muller is an 'activist' against are the same companies that feed and cloth Mr Muller. Possibly the most underhanded website owner in South Africa.

emporer

Jan 08 2009 12:10
Report this comment
S&B - Prove what you believe and you will see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. - You obviously missed the part where you are mentioned. I particularly enjoyed the part where you sold out for a free flight from Mr Muller. I will let you know I am highly active on the forum. Certainly not going to fade away like the poor sods who were banned. And to the ***ker - great initiative whoever you are!

emporer

Jan 08 2009 12:55
Report this comment
S&B. ***kerlakker talks about you too. Interestingly enough you seem to think the site is run by a banned member. I asked you to prove this and by trying to prove it you will probably start finding out how deep the rabbit hole goes. I respect your admiration and love for your new-found sugar daddy, but S&B... a lot of us always thought you were a brown noser - hence you are were kept out the loop believing you know everything when in fact the rabbit hole just got deeper. Enjoy! ;)

Lemming

Jan 08 2009 13:19
Report this comment
Shake&Bake has been bought. The owner of MyBroadband has been sending sometimes quite substantial 'gift' packages to people who fly the flag or do them a favour. It's similar to Vodacom's idea, which is to wine and dine forumites occasionally to keep them sweet. The guy who does that, Vodacom3g, obviously enjoys the company of young boys, since he spends a considerable time on the forum chatting to them.
Click to expand...

I've had enough, I can't communicate with this schezophrenic anymore :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X