New Kit Police Investigation

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Ruddygore"]Haven''t seen anyone claiming expert legal knowledge - must have missed that. You don''t have to be a QC (Queens Counsel, Barrister) to have a bit of common sense but then again being a know all isn''t exclusive is it Cambridge, after all you''ve just demonstrated it. ZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......[/quote]

 

There are plenty of posters claiming that the lad has done nothing wrong and has not hacked the site.   If saying someone accused of an illegal act has not done anything wrong is not expressing an opinion on the law then what is?

 

What has common sense got to do with it?   It doesn''t sound like breaking the law so common sense says it''s not?   If you live in a world where the law and common sense are commensurate then well done but the rest of us live here.

[hogesar 9,657]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

I don''t really know what has happened here but I am surprised by all the knee jerk reactions and Know-it-all responses that the Club is making a huge cockup because "He ain''t done nothing".   There are a lot of experts here on the laws relating to hacking and the misuse of computers despite this being an area of law that few solicitors understand.   Wow!!!   I''m impressed

 

Maybe.  Time will tell.  There are a few posters on this thread going to look pretty silly if the magistrates convict.   The Club may equally look as small minded many of you have described it if he is acquitted.   My bet is that if he is charged under the misuse of computers legislation that he will plead guilty.

 

I am reminded of all the similiar attacks on the Club when it sued the News Of The World yet in the end it was McNally who was right.   Does anyone seriously think an operator like McNally would fly into something without knowing the facts and without the relevant legal advice?   McNally has a good team around him.   These guys are not amateurs. 

 

As I say time will tell.  I look forward to seeing how this one plays out.

[/quote]I can tell you now he wouldn''t be charged under the Misuse of Computers act. And yes, i do know the legislation. As yes, i do know how the images were retrieved to an extent.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Ren"]

"These guys are not amateurs"

- Lol!  When it comes to dealing with supporters, their customers, thats exactly what I would say they are. 

Its easy to sell tickets and merch when the product on the field is good, lets see how they do if that goes the other way!

[/quote]

 

 

And when it comes to protecting and maximising the financial position of the Club and fighting for the Club''s interests they undoubtedly are.   It may not be the cosy little club that it was and I regret that in some ways but this is a hrd nosed and professionally run set up now.   I do not believe they would have riasked calling in the police without good grounds in law.

[Ruddygore 0]

Bit of a knee-jerk response there Cambridge?

Quite a lot of the time common sense has nothing to do with the law, quite a lot of the time justice has very little to do with the law.

If you are a legal expert then have a go. Until then we''re saying it how we see it, when was that a crime?

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

I don''t really know what has happened here but I am surprised by all the knee jerk reactions and Know-it-all responses that the Club is making a huge cockup because "He ain''t done nothing".   There are a lot of experts here on the laws relating to hacking and the misuse of computers despite this being an area of law that few solicitors understand.   Wow!!!   I''m impressed

 

Maybe.  Time will tell.  There are a few posters on this thread going to look pretty silly if the magistrates convict.   The Club may equally look as small minded many of you have described it if he is acquitted.   My bet is that if he is charged under the misuse of computers legislation that he will plead guilty.

 

I am reminded of all the similiar attacks on the Club when it sued the News Of The World yet in the end it was McNally who was right.   Does anyone seriously think an operator like McNally would fly into something without knowing the facts and without the relevant legal advice?   McNally has a good team around him.   These guys are not amateurs. 

 

As I say time will tell.  I look forward to seeing how this one plays out.

[/quote]

I can tell you now he wouldn''t be charged under the Misuse of Computers act. And yes, i do know the legislation. As yes, i do know how the images were retrieved to an extent.
[/quote]

 

You may well be right.  If you do have the expert knowledge that you claim then I will happily bet that you are the only poster on this thread who does - including me

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

I don''t really know what has happened here but I am surprised by all the knee jerk reactions and Know-it-all responses that the Club is making a huge cockup because "He ain''t done nothing".   There are a lot of experts here on the laws relating to hacking and the misuse of computers despite this being an area of law that few solicitors understand.   Wow!!!   I''m impressed

 

Maybe.  Time will tell.  There are a few posters on this thread going to look pretty silly if the magistrates convict.   The Club may equally look as small minded many of you have described it if he is acquitted.   My bet is that if he is charged under the misuse of computers legislation that he will plead guilty.

 

I am reminded of all the similiar attacks on the Club when it sued the News Of The World yet in the end it was McNally who was right.   Does anyone seriously think an operator like McNally would fly into something without knowing the facts and without the relevant legal advice?   McNally has a good team around him.   These guys are not amateurs. 

 

As I say time will tell.  I look forward to seeing how this one plays out.

[/quote]Yes, because the IT work looks very amateurish.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

I don''t know anything about knee jerk, appointments, permissions and plans ruddy buddy. I just can''t take it all seriously. Maybe, as Cambridge said, there''s more to it than either McNally being a plank or the poliss being ridiculous. Time will tell.

 

 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Ren"]

"These guys are not amateurs"

- Lol!  When it comes to dealing with supporters, their customers, thats exactly what I would say they are. 

Its easy to sell tickets and merch when the product on the field is good, lets see how they do if that goes the other way!

[/quote]

I would guess that if it became difficult to sell merchandise or fill the staduim they would offer incentives and/or reduce prices, im afraid I dont quite see you point, why are they amateurs? Im not ashamed to be a Norwich City supporter, but if I were it would be because of fellow ''fans'' comments like these more than events like today.

[Ruddygore 0]

Well Nige, at least you''ve expressed an opinion. Did you have any legal expertise in forming it?

I suspect the answer may be no in which case expect Cambridge along anytime soon with a scalding mixed with a little belittlement because we don''t know all the facts yet.

Can''t remember anyone saying they knew all the facts yet either but I suspect this much. If you didn''t get reaction on this board for a couple of days over an incident because we were waiting for all the facts to be in then we wouldn''t have much to talk about.

Next time can you ask the club to release all the information in a timely manner with Legal Issues included so that we can have some accurate knee jerks to please Cambridge?

[priceyrice 123]

My guess he is guilty under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, i''ll put the section below i think he has probably breached:I don''t exactly understand how he got the images onto his pc, but i guess he''s breached s.1(1)- read for yourself and decide, i may look into it in bit more detail later, but busy working atm.Whatever the case may be, an extremely bad reaction from the club, which makes me wonder if the poor boy is being used for extra publicity

s.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 [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

(b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] 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.

[F3(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on

summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not

exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or

to both;

(b)on

summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not

exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or

to both;

(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.]

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Ruddygore"]Well Nige, at least you''ve expressed an opinion. Did you have any legal expertise in forming it? I suspect the answer may be no in which case expect Cambridge along anytime soon with a scalding mixed with a little belittlement because we don''t know all the facts yet. Can''t remember anyone saying they knew all the facts yet either but I suspect this much. If you didn''t get reaction on this board for a couple of days over an incident because we were waiting for all the facts to be in then we wouldn''t have much to talk about. Next time can you ask the club to release all the information in a timely manner with Legal Issues included so that we can have some accurate knee jerks to please Cambridge?[/quote]

 

So in your world it''s fine to pass opinions without knowing the facts!!

 

Dear God.  No wonder we have the government that we do with ideas like this.  Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion eh?

[priceyrice 123]

I meant to say that i doubt he will be prosecuted, there have been a very small number of prosecutions under the computer misuse act since its inception, I am sure it''s something between 50-100 people.

[BW 0]

Once again Mcnally embarrasses himself by taking on the small guy and crushing him. (same as the canary beer or whatever it was). We should be working together with such people and like someone said give this kid a job in our IT department he clearly knows what he is doing. Wish our club wasn''t so petty, but guess i have to accept it as we are now a successful club.....no i won''t Mcnally out!!!!!!

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Ruddygore"]Well Nige, at least you''ve expressed an opinion. Did you have any legal expertise in forming it?

I suspect the answer may be no in which case expect Cambridge along anytime soon with a scalding mixed with a little belittlement because we don''t know all the facts yet.

Can''t remember anyone saying they knew all the facts yet either but I suspect this much. If you didn''t get reaction on this board for a couple of days over an incident because we were waiting for all the facts to be in then we wouldn''t have much to talk about.

Next time can you ask the club to release all the information in a timely manner with Legal Issues included so that we can have some accurate knee jerks to please Cambridge?[/quote]

Ruddy, I entirely see the point you are making but with respect to Cambridge I dont think he has tried to suggest the actions of the club should not be discussed, just that the more extreame vitrol towards the club on a matter we may not know everthing about yet and which is still unfolding maybe somewhat premature. A valid point worth making in my opinion.

 

[Ruddygore 0]

Yes Cambridge, it''s fine by most people I know to express an opinion based on the facts that are AVAILABLE.

If you want to wait for the result of the trial we''ll see you then eh?

[Ruddygore 0]

SOAG, I confess that I either haven''t seen or have missed the extreme vitriol towards the club, but in the case that there has been then I take yours and Cambridges point if that is what it was.

For the moment we have mostly been enjoying the "right" to express "knee jerk responses" based on what we know, how we feel and with the common sense without the benefit of a law degree that anyone feels free to express.

My apologia lol.

[William Darby 0]

Difficult to prove whether the image was accessed in an unauthorised area.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="BW"]Once again Mcnally embarrasses himself by taking on the small guy and crushing him. (same as the canary beer or whatever it was). We should be working together with such people and like someone said give this kid a job in our IT department he clearly knows what he is doing. Wish our club wasn''t so petty, but guess i have to accept it as we are now a successful club.....no i won''t Mcnally out!!!!!![/quote]

McNally crushes the small guy by.....dropping any legal procedings. Brilliant BW. Also lets reward the guy by giving him a well paid job because thats sure to deter any future cyber attempts. Gold star for you and straight to the head of the class.

[priceyrice 123]

quote user="The Pink''un Role Model"]Difficult to prove whether the image was accessed in an unauthorised area.[/quotWould look to me like it hinges on that, i don''t exactly understand how the kid managed to get hold of them so can''t judge whether he was accessing unauthorised areas or not, i presume he was though. The legal department at NCFC are no fools, but i doubt they have any cybercrime experts, I wonder if they are working down the Intellectual Property route, comments i read earlier seem to suggest they could be. Good luck with that!!

[priceyrice 123]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

[quote user="BW"]Once again Mcnally embarrasses himself by taking on the small guy and crushing him. (same as the canary beer or whatever it was). We should be working together with such people and like someone said give this kid a job in our IT department he clearly knows what he is doing. Wish our club wasn''t so petty, but guess i have to accept it as we are now a successful club.....no i won''t Mcnally out!!!!!![/quote]

McNally crushes the small guy by.....dropping any legal procedings. Brilliant BW. Also lets reward the guy by giving him a well paid job because thats sure to deter any future cyber attempts. Gold star for you and straight to the head of the class.

[/quote]I think you''ll find that a lot of the top cybercriminals/hackers over the last 20 years are employed by some of the largest companies or at least taken on as consultants- these are the people who understand computer systems better than anyone else, why not take advtange of that

[VegasCanary 0]

I''d hardly give him a job because he can read a CSS file, crikey.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Ruddygore"]SOAG, I confess that I either haven''t seen or have missed the extreme vitriol towards the club, but in the case that there has been then I take yours and Cambridges point if that is what it was.

For the moment we have mostly been enjoying the "right" to express "knee jerk responses" based on what we know, how we feel and with the common sense without the benefit of a law degree that anyone feels free to express.

My apologia lol.[/quote]

Absolutely no apology necessary mate. The difficulty with text is that the meaning or point can be easy mis-interpreted and the way I am reading his posts maybe completely different to you (esp as I share his view) and you maybe correct not me! With very few exceptions I wouldnt say any of the opionions read are wrong just different to mine and while I have no intention of trying to change opionions to match my own on the matter the debate needs to be more that just post after post of McNally bashing in order to have some sense of balance

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Ok, clearly I am in a minority here in beliving the club acted responsibly (based on facts at hand) which I am fine with. Its good news that they have announced they dont want to take any further legal action and as many have said, there is no doubt in my mind that some departments within the club will not be sitting very confortably over the next few days. Reminds me of the case no so long ago with the brewer producing ''On The Ball'' ale.

I am surpised at the lack of faith in McNally''s decisions given his track record. As for being ashamed to be a Norwich Fan over this and the introduction of annual kit changes, wow..and people think my view on this is OTT

[/quote]

 

Is this the case? Has McNally now said this? I may have missed it.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

[quote user="BW"]Once again Mcnally embarrasses himself by taking on the small guy and crushing him. (same as the canary beer or whatever it was). We should be working together with such people and like someone said give this kid a job in our IT department he clearly knows what he is doing. Wish our club wasn''t so petty, but guess i have to accept it as we are now a successful club.....no i won''t Mcnally out!!!!!![/quote]

McNally crushes the small guy by.....dropping any legal procedings. Brilliant BW. Also lets reward the guy by giving him a well paid job because thats sure to deter any future cyber attempts. Gold star for you and straight to the head of the class.

[/quote]

 

I am not suggesting that it should happen in this case, but just pointing out that it does happen.  One of the most famous cases of it''s type - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Ok, clearly I am in a minority here in beliving the club acted responsibly (based on facts at hand) which I am fine with. Its good news that they have announced they dont want to take any further legal action and as many have said, there is no doubt in my mind that some departments within the club will not be sitting very confortably over the next few days. Reminds me of the case no so long ago with the brewer producing ''On The Ball'' ale.

I am surpised at the lack of faith in McNally''s decisions given his track record. As for being ashamed to be a Norwich Fan over this and the introduction of annual kit changes, wow..and people think my view on this is OTT

[/quote]

 

Is this the case? Has McNally now said this? I may have missed it.

[/quote]

 

I haven''t heard this either.  I heard that they wouldn''t make comment on them, not that they had dropped them.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Ok, clearly I am in a minority here in beliving the club acted responsibly (based on facts at hand) which I am fine with. Its good news that they have announced they dont want to take any further legal action and as many have said, there is no doubt in my mind that some departments within the club will not be sitting very confortably over the next few days. Reminds me of the case no so long ago with the brewer producing ''On The Ball'' ale.

I am surpised at the lack of faith in McNally''s decisions given his track record. As for being ashamed to be a Norwich Fan over this and the introduction of annual kit changes, wow..and people think my view on this is OTT

[/quote]

 

Is this the case? Has McNally now said this? I may have missed it.

[/quote]

 

I haven''t heard this either.  I heard that they wouldn''t make comment on them, not that they had dropped them.

[/quote]

I''m sorry, it hasn''t been announced that the club has dropped proceedings, got some duff info. apologies!

[Firedawg 3]

C.S.I. Norwich perhaps ?

Would prefer Morse but afraid he has passed on so maybe Lewis or Frost to investigate .

[hogesar 9,657]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

I don''t really know what has happened here but I am surprised by all the knee jerk reactions and Know-it-all responses that the Club is making a huge cockup because "He ain''t done nothing".   There are a lot of experts here on the laws relating to hacking and the misuse of computers despite this being an area of law that few solicitors understand.   Wow!!!   I''m impressed

 

Maybe.  Time will tell.  There are a few posters on this thread going to look pretty silly if the magistrates convict.   The Club may equally look as small minded many of you have described it if he is acquitted.   My bet is that if he is charged under the misuse of computers legislation that he will plead guilty.

 

I am reminded of all the similiar attacks on the Club when it sued the News Of The World yet in the end it was McNally who was right.   Does anyone seriously think an operator like McNally would fly into something without knowing the facts and without the relevant legal advice?   McNally has a good team around him.   These guys are not amateurs. 

 

As I say time will tell.  I look forward to seeing how this one plays out.

[/quote]I can tell you now he wouldn''t be charged under the Misuse of Computers act. And yes, i do know the legislation. As yes, i do know how the images were retrieved to an extent.[/quote]

 

You may well be right.  If you do have the expert knowledge that you claim then I will happily bet that you are the only poster on this thread who does - including me

[/quote]Don''t get me wrong - no expert but working in IT i am aware of the legislation and what it includes.Pricey - the bit you highlighted would come close to applying - but i really think it doesnt here. Can it be classed as unauthorised when there is no authorisation required to see an image which is, after all, hosted publically on the internet, the direct link was just not made available on the website.Obviously spreading the link around is what pissed off McNally etc but thats a completely different aspect.

[Bury Green 0]

Its not as if this lad has done anything particularly detrimental to the club like a claim rebate now is it?

 

Three years ago there wouldn’t have been enough Plod to go round when hands were being inserted into the clubs fast diminishing till!

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="paul moy"]Hacking is a serious offence, however there are mitigating circumstances in that the website made itself easy to be hacked and was thus negligent IMO. I agree that the damage here is minimal but this kind of behaviour should be nipped in the bud early before more serious offences are committed if potential future offenders see there is no deterrent.[/quote]

He hasn''t hacked, he''s just viewed the files that were already there. If he hasn''t fraudulently cracked the security I can''t see if a proper crime has been committed.
[/quote]

Well, it depends on the full details of the alleged ''crime'' but as I understand it there was theft of data, which I believe can come under the ''hacking'' heading, depending on how it was achieved.   

[/quote]

 

How was their theft of data?[:^)]

[/quote]

The code etc that the chap took a copy of is data and may well have a copyright tag on it. Having worked in a software house I know this is common practice. Taking it and then using/modifying it for his own use is thus theft of copyrighted data.