[AlexanderHanff]

I have added the following to the article based on my interpretation of the English version of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

The difference between the Scottish version of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the English version is that the English version requires the proof that the entity committing the illegal act has knowledge and intent of their actions, so it is often difficult to use the Act in England and Wales. However, on this occassion I believe it is possible to use the English version based on the following information from Section 3 of the Act:
3. Unauthorised modification of computer material
1. A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the con-
tents of any computer; and
(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the
requisite knowledge.
2. For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent
to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such
data.
As we can see ss1.b specifies the need to prove intent and knowledge and if intent
can be proved then ss2.a and ss2.b become applicable (and possibly even ss2.c).
Using the same arguments as discussed with regards the Scottish version of the
Act, it is clear that the Layer 7 technology is being used to "hinder" access and the
process is impairing the network processes of the computer initiating the request
(customer).
The very fact that the Layer 7 technology exists on the network purely for
the purpose of Deep Packet Inspection and rerouting the communication to the
imposter server, should be enough to satisfy both intent and knowledge. The Layer
7 technology is intended to intercept and BT installed it with the knowledge that
this is exactly what it does. So in the case of the 2006/2007 trials, which we
have already established were unauthorised (thus satisfying ss1.a) and with the
information above satisfying ss1.b and ss2.a/ss2.b it would seem likely that the
trials were in breach of the Act

Alexander Hanff