Re: Computer Misuse Act 1990

In message <(E-Mail Removed) >, Peter
Crosland <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>1 Unauthorised access to computer material
>(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
>
>(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure
>access to any program or data held in any computer;
>
>(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
>
>(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function
>that that is the case.
>
>(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section
>need not be directed at-
>
>(a) any particular program or data;
>
>(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
>
>(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
>
>(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on
>summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to
>a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
>
>Does anyone else think that the updating of 2700HGV firmware by BT
>contravenes this provision where the 2700HGV belongs to someone who is not a
>the original BT customer it was supplied to?
>
>Peter Crosland
>
>
I suspect it would come down to the terms under which BT originally
supplied the router.

--
Invalid

2wire supply these routers under licence to BT.

Whatever contract BT signed with 2wire will be subject to US statutes.

Your question is a bottomless money pit for UK lawyers.

If you feel bold enough to take up the cudgels and start a legal action
we await that test case with bated breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990

Above act is unlikely to apply.

On 13/01/2010 20:40, Invalid wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed) >, Peter
> Crosland <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> 1 Unauthorised access to computer material
>> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
>>
>> (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure
>> access to any program or data held in any computer;
>>
>> (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
>>
>> (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the
>> function
>> that that is the case.
>>
>> (2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this
>> section
>> need not be directed at-
>>
>> (a) any particular program or data;
>>
>> (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
>>
>> (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
>>
>> (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on
>> summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months
>> or to
>> a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
>>
>> Does anyone else think that the updating of 2700HGV firmware by BT
>> contravenes this provision where the 2700HGV belongs to someone who is
>> not a
>> the original BT customer it was supplied to?
>>
>> Peter Crosland
>>
>>
> I suspect it would come down to the terms under which BT originally
> supplied the router.
>
I was thinking along the same lines.
This router is branded as the "BT Business Hub" in the UK and presumably
was/is supplied new by BT Connect to their business customers as part of
a rental package?
Many ISPs supply modem/routers as "free" but they don't actually give
them away; many reserve the right to ask for them back at the end of the
contract or charge customers who want to keep them. Of course, ISPs
might not bother to ask for them back - or charge - but that does not
give the user any right of ownership or right to sell.
I don't recall this router ever being sold brand-new on the retail
market. If it were, then perhaps Peter would have a case.
I suspect, however, that these routers have invariably found their way
on to the market from ex-BT Connect business customers who strictly
ought to have given them back?
If that's the case, all BT wound need to say in court is perhaps
something like: "The routers are ours and they are programmed to update
automatically to give our customers the best experience, which is part
of our terms and conditions. We do not sell these routers on the open
market as that is part of our deal in the UK with the manufacturer,
2-Wire."

I stand corrected Peter, you seem to be an expert on the 2wire - BT
conditions of resale. What exactly are the terms of this contract ?

Perhaps you would like to post them here.
>
> 2Wire don't licence them to BT but sell them outright.
>
> Peter Crosland

alanp wrote:
> I stand corrected Peter, you seem to be an expert on the 2wire - BT
> conditions of resale. What exactly are the terms of this contract ?
>

peter is an expert on everything he knows nothing about.

> Perhaps you would like to post them here.
>>
>> 2Wire don't licence them to BT but sell them outright.
>> Peter Crosland
>
>

On 13/01/2010 21:35, Peter Crosland wrote:
> "George Weston"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 13/01/2010 20:40, Invalid wrote:
>>> In message<27ednV8AqYF_gdPWnZ2dnUVZ8rWdnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk>, Peter
>>> Crosland<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>> 1 Unauthorised access to computer material
>>>> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
>>>>
>>>> (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure
>>>> access to any program or data held in any computer;
>>>>
>>>> (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
>>>>
>>>> (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the
>>>> function
>>>> that that is the case.
>>>>
>>>> (2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this
>>>> section
>>>> need not be directed at-
>>>>
>>>> (a) any particular program or data;
>>>>
>>>> (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
>>>>
>>>> (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
>>>>
>>>> (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on
>>>> summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months
>>>> or to
>>>> a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else think that the updating of 2700HGV firmware by BT
>>>> contravenes this provision where the 2700HGV belongs to someone who is
>>>> not a
>>>> the original BT customer it was supplied to?
>>>>
>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I suspect it would come down to the terms under which BT originally
>>> supplied the router.
>>>
>> I was thinking along the same lines.
>> This router is branded as the "BT Business Hub" in the UK and presumably
>> was/is supplied new by BT Connect to their business customers as part of a
>> rental package?
>> Many ISPs supply modem/routers as "free" but they don't actually give them
>> away; many reserve the right to ask for them back at the end of the
>> contract or charge customers who want to keep them. Of course, ISPs might
>> not bother to ask for them back - or charge - but that does not give the
>> user any right of ownership or right to sell.
>> I don't recall this router ever being sold brand-new on the retail market.
>> If it were, then perhaps Peter would have a case.
>> I suspect, however, that these routers have invariably found their way on
>> to the market from ex-BT Connect business customers who strictly ought to
>> have given them back?
>> If that's the case, all BT wound need to say in court is perhaps something
>> like: "The routers are ours and they are programmed to update
>> automatically to give our customers the best experience, which is part of
>> our terms and conditions. We do not sell these routers on the open market
>> as that is part of our deal in the UK with the manufacturer, 2-Wire."
>
> You are making a lot of assumptions George! I am not contemplating taking
> action against BT. I have made sure that remote updating is disabled so my
> 2700's firmware has not been changed. AFAIK the BT Business hub is supplied
> as part of a package and the customer is free to use it or their own
> equipment as they wish but I am willing to be proved wrong. It has been
> possible to buy the BT badged 2700 from BT separately.

If you're right about BT selling the routers separately, I'd agree with
you, Peter.

George

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:35:28 +0000, Peter Crosland wrote:

> I have made sure that remote updating is disabled so my
> 2700's firmware has not been changed

Err, if it's possible to *disable* the updates as easy as that, then
surely the CMA angle has no legs.

It becomes a plain old user issue - quite apart from any separate
licensing or ownership issues.

In message <himrn4$1lm$(E-Mail Removed)>, alanp
<anonymous@not_a_proper_domain.com> writes
>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>>> I have made sure that remote updating is disabled so my 2700's
>>>firmware has not been changed.
>>
>> Is there a link for this?
>>
>> BB
>
> http://bt2700hgv.tripod.com/032.htm
>
>Only works on 2700s that have firmware earlier than V.6 - you need to
>be able to access the management & diagnostic console, and until
>someone comes up with a hack this has been blocked on V.6 .
>
>
And just to close the loop

Depending on the terms and conditions under which BT supplied these
devices to the original users applying such a hack might itself be an
offence against the act?
--
Invalid

>> http://bt2700hgv.tripod.com/032.htm
>>
>
> Thanks for the link; unfortunately my software version is 5.29.117.3,
> which the info in the link doesn't seem to refer to :-(

Try home/mdc in the address bar of your browser, system password is
2wire.

If that gets you into the mdc you can block the provisioning servers as
per the tripod link above.

Does your 2wire have the Singtel firmware installed ?

In <(E-Mail Removed)> George Weston <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>This router is branded as the "BT Business Hub" in the UK and presumably
>was/is supplied new by BT Connect to their business customers as part of
>a rental package?
>Many ISPs supply modem/routers as "free" but they don't actually give
>them away; many reserve the right to ask for them back at the end of the
>contract or charge customers who want to keep them. Of course, ISPs
>might not bother to ask for them back - or charge - but that does not
>give the user any right of ownership or right to sell.

But if BT do not exercise their right to demand its return (within some
reasonable period), then it could well be argued that it had been
"abandoned". Finders keepers.

Clearly, no contract would exist between BT and any other person into
whose possession it might come. OTOH, if the automatic download is a
"feature" of the box (presumably documented as such), then no contract is
required. But neither has BT any responsibility any obligation towards the
new owner to turn it off. The new owner took it over, willingly, "as-is".
If he didn't know about the "feature", then Tough!

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: (E-Mail Removed) Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5