Local hacker facing arrest

[biometrics]

I agree, looking at the article, although poorly written with very few facts, this does not appear to be hacking. The same with the COJ case. Hacking was never involved, it was the media that brought the 'hacking' claims. The only offence in the COJ case was unauthorized access to data. The same appears to be the case here.

What is hacking?

 

[Vrotappel]

Sensationalist headline.

This incident is to hacking as using a stolen safe combination is to safe cracking

I sincerely doubt that the accused could 'hack' into anything - well, maybe a chocolate cake...

LOL so true.

 

[House]

Ftfy

And this is where you, right from day one, misinterpreted the law. There is a huge difference, according to the ECT Act between unauthorized access to data and overcoming security measures in place to protect this data. In fact, it is clear from Section 86 that they are both different offences, but both are still criminal.

Just to prove my point, take a look at the COJ case we have been going on over. While everyone here thought that no offence was committed and that the charges would have been tossed out, they were all wrong. While everyone thought that no crime was committed in accessing the statements as they were housed on an unsecured server, and that they had 'authorized' access, they were also wrong.

In fact, had everyone been right the case would have been withdrawn already. It is not. It is still under investigation while tons of affidavits is being obtained and services providers subpoenaed. All the allegations of information on public servers, server providing authorization, no security measures or authentication in place to authenticate access have been taken into consideration, but found to be irrelevant. The fact that the statements was accessed without permission from the account holders is an offence.

The fact that the case has not been withdrawn is an indication that there is just one more important factor: Will the IP addresses on the logs be linked to those to be charged?.... Suppose we will just have to wait and see. My personal opinion is that this will be the deciding factor on whether this matter will go to trial.

 

[Paul Hjul]

And this is where you, right from day one, misinterpreted the law. There is a huge difference, according to the ECT Act between unauthorized access to data and overcoming security measures in place to protect this data. In fact, it is clear from Section 86 that they are both different offences, but both are still criminal.

O here is a new novel and thoughtfully idiotic theory. It is also entirely contradicted by the very section 86 you are quoting. There is a set of offences arising in section 86 including a section 86(3) offence which an instrumentally offence - now if the conduct alleged to sustain a section 86(3) offence doesn't muster an 86(1) offence an essential element of the crime by statute is missing namely "to unlawfully utilise such item to contravene this section" - in other words a device or method to accomplish unauthorized access is illegal under section 86(3) even if unsuccesfully used. But a means to lawfully access data with authorized access simply falls outside of scope.

The fact that the case has not been withdrawn is an indication that there is just one more important factor

um for a case to be withdrawn there has to actually be a case - to date no charges have been brought to any court. The fact that the docket hasn't been closed and no case brought to court simply shows that the SAPS are avoiding admitting to having wasted resources on a matter that makes them look like baffoons. In fact all indications - including your change of argument from 86(1) to the subsidiary offences means that a goose chase for evidence of a denial of service or manipulation of data is what is happening behind the scenes.

 

[IzZzy]

./snip

So the COJ case has expanded beyond just Magicdude?

 

[House]

O here is a new novel and thoughtfully idiotic theory. It is also entirely contradicted by the very section 86 you are quoting. There is a set of offences arising in section 86 including a section 86(3) offence which an instrumentally offence - now if the conduct alleged to sustain a section 86(3) offence doesn't muster an 86(1) offence an essential element of the crime by statute is missing namely "to unlawfully utilise such item to contravene this section" - in other words a device or method to accomplish unauthorized access is illegal under section 86(3) even if unsuccesfully used. But a means to lawfully access data with authorized access simply falls outside of scope.


um for a case to be withdrawn there has to actually be a case - to date no charges have been brought to any court. The fact that the docket hasn't been closed and no case brought to court simply shows that the SAPS are avoiding admitting to having wasted resources on a matter that makes them look like baffoons. In fact all indications - including your change of argument from 86(1) to the subsidiary offences means that a goose chase for evidence of a denial of service or manipulation of data is what is happening behind the scenes.

Since you are not quite interested in conducting research or speak to prosecutors, perhaps you should consult a real criminal attorney, which could not be hard to find, to give you some guidance not only on this case, but also how the criminal investigation process works.

No charge is opened and brought to court the same day. In any criminal case, the same here with the COJ, the case have already been with the prosecutors a number of times. The police are now obtaining the evidence the prosecutor requires. They are past their own investigations, but are completing that of the prosecutor now. Once this is done the decision regarding prosecution will be taken. When this happens, the docket will be returned to the investigating officer with one of the following 2 things:

1. Section 50 Warrant of Arrest (in which case your client will probably be arrested at work or at home)

or

2. Summons to appear in court (which will be served on your client.)

Just for your information, when the prosecutor received the case docket the first time, the case would have been withdrawn if there was no evidence or charge to answer to in court. Obviously the State feels different and need certain evidence to go to trial. Well, the case was not withdrawn, hence the reason why I said that if they get all the evidence required, I think this case will go on trial within the next 1-2 years.

 

[Paul Hjul]

um actually no the prosecutor on receiving the docket an do one of several things including:
declining to prosecute and issuing a nolle prosequi
referring the docket back to the investigating officer for further investigation prior to taking a decision frequently with an indication that a "warning statement" must be taken from the suspect
instituting proceedings by way of issuing a summons for the accused to appear before a lower court
referring the matter to the DPP (previously the Attorney-General) for a decision
take the docket under advisement and consult prior to making a decision
seeking a s43 warrant of arrest from a justice of the peace upon which arrest proceedings will have been instituted
prepare an indictment for proceedings before a superior court and referring the matter to the DPP

On all of the occasions where I have been involved in one way or another with criminal proceedings the prosecutor has never gone with 1 or 2 of your list on first receiving the docket.

I think you are confusing "complaint" and "charge" here - go and check your copy of Snyman and the CPA.

Every attorney who has dealt with a case where there is bull**** underlying the matter is well aware of the practice of "wombling" by unfortunate prosecutors handling the matter - as I have best heard it described.
SAPS hands over the docket and the prosecutor sits on it for a bit until pressure is brought (mostly by SAPS) insists on a warning statement or declines to prosecute. SAPS then either get the warning statement or go to another prosecutor for a s43 warrant and eventually after SAPS are gung hoe to go they make an arrest or gets a summons served. At the first callup for trial the blindsided and underprepared prosecutor goes for a postponement or withdraws the charges before taking a plea (the latter is actually preferable).
3 postponements and a withdrawal being quite a common occurrence - in fact of the 216 cases involving the RGA that saw charges brought to court more than 75% of cases saw the prosecutor wanting excessive bail and after 2 or 3 postponements the withdrawal of charges.

 

[House]

um actually no the prosecutor on receiving the docket an do one of several things including:
declining to prosecute and issuing a nolle prosequi
referring the docket back to the investigating officer for further investigation prior to taking a decision frequently with an indication that a "warning statement" must be taken from the suspect
instituting proceedings by way of issuing a summons for the accused to appear before a lower court
referring the matter to the DPP (previously the Attorney-General) for a decision
take the docket under advisement and consult prior to making a decision
seeking a s43 warrant of arrest from a justice of the peace upon which arrest proceedings will have been instituted
prepare an indictment for proceedings before a superior court and referring the matter to the DPP

On all of the occasions where I have been involved in one way or another with criminal proceedings the prosecutor has never gone with 1 or 2 of your list on first receiving the docket.

I think you are confusing "complaint" and "charge" here - go and check your copy of Snyman and the CPA.

Every attorney who has dealt with a case where there is bull**** underlying the matter is well aware of the practice of "wombling" by unfortunate prosecutors handling the matter - as I have best heard it described.
SAPS hands over the docket and the prosecutor sits on it for a bit until pressure is brought (mostly by SAPS) insists on a warning statement or declines to prosecute. SAPS then either get the warning statement or go to another prosecutor for a s43 warrant and eventually after SAPS are gung hoe to go they make an arrest or gets a summons served. At the first callup for trial the blindsided and underprepared prosecutor goes for a postponement or withdraws the charges before taking a plea (the latter is actually preferable).
3 postponements and a withdrawal being quite a common occurrence - in fact of the 216 cases involving the RGA that saw charges brought to court more than 75% of cases saw the prosecutor wanting excessive bail and after 2 or 3 postponements the withdrawal of charges.

You are mumbling BS here and you know it.

 

[Paul Hjul]

nope I am setting out what is common cause and a clear error on your part.
go and read the bloody Criminal Procedure Act to get the definition of charge - its in the definitions section (s1) it already appears if you are being lazy
In fact the entirety of s80-104 is important - as can be seen by looking at the index