Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Computers & The Law. It needs to be at least 2000 words.Download file to see previous pages... In instances when attack is attempted or launched ag

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Computers & The Law. It needs to be at least 2000 words.

In instances when attack is attempted or launched against a computer system which caused the breakdown or slowdown of its services, who shall be held liable? It is the task of this paper to examine culpability, if any, of the perpetrators, including the service provider which is parallel to the problem presented by Macrobox, a software supplier, where one of its clients is Staffordshire Pets Inc. (SP) which is engaged in animal testing. In summary, Macrobox alleged that it not only suffered actual damages but also damages on its customer good will due to several DNS attacks launched by activist groups to compel them to cease and desist from providing software services. According to Macrobox, the actual perpetrators cannot be determined although a blogger has been traced to have provided the online guide to successfully hack the Macrobox server not to mention that it has likewise recorded several attempts to invade its system. Under the foregoing circumstances, the blogger by providing online guidance to direct the computer attack or server intrusion and all those persons who may have conspired and confederated with the blogger may be held liable under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) as amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006 (PJA) and Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA) where the following acts were defined as unlawful or criminal acts—unauthorized access to computer material. unauthorized access with intent to commit a further offence. and unauthorized modification of computer material. Section 1 of the CMA provides that in cases of unauthorized access to computer material a person may be found guilty when (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. and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. This provision was modified by Section 35 sub-section (2) of the PJA where the phrases were inserted in sub-section (1) in paragraph a to read “…or to enable any such access to be secured” while in paragraph (b) “…or to enable to be secured” however this amendatory provision was again superseded by Section 61 of the SCA by omitting altogether subsection (2). While Section 2 finds a person guilty under unauthorized access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences if it is committed with intent (a) to commit an offence to which this section applies. or (b) to facilitate the commission of such an offence (whether by himself or by any other person). and the offence he intends to commit or facilitate is to be committed on the same occasion as the unauthorized access offence or on any future occasion and it is further stated that guilt may still be adjudged even though the facts are such that the commission of the further offence is impossible.