Example sentences of "[noun sg] to any program " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | S 1(1) provides that ‘ a person is guilty of an offence if — ( a ) he causes a computer to perform any function 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 relevant words are ‘ he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer ’ . |
| 3 | Therefore s 1(1) was contravened when , as happened in the present case , a person caused a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in the same computer . |
| 4 | Crime — Computer misuse — Unauthorised access — Person using one computer to obtain from it unauthorised benefit — Whether unauthorised use of single computer within statute — ‘ Access to any program or data held in any computer ’ — Computer Misuse Act 1990 ( c. 18 ) , ss. 1(1) , 2(1) |
| 5 | The Attorney-General referred to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the question whether , in order for a person to commit an offence under section 1(1) of the Act of 1990 the computer which the person caused to perform any function with the required intent had to be a different computer from the one into which he intended to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held therein . |
| 6 | Held , that , in the opinion of the court , in section 1(1) ( a ) of the Act of 1990 the words ‘ causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer , ’ in their plain and ordinary meaning , were not confined to the use of one computer with intent to secure access into another computer ; so that section 1(1) was contravened where a person caused a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in the same computer ( post , pp. 437A–B , C–D , 438A , E–F ) . |
| 7 | Held , that , in the opinion of the court , in section 1(1) ( a ) of the Act of 1990 the words ‘ causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer , ’ in their plain and ordinary meaning , were not confined to the use of one computer with intent to secure access into another computer ; so that section 1(1) was contravened where a person caused a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in the same computer ( post , pp. 437A–B , C–D , 438A , E–F ) . |
| 8 | ‘ The point of law referred for consideration by the court is : in order for a person to commit an offence under section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 does the computer which the person causes to perform any function with the required intent have to be a different computer to the one into which he intends to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held there ? |
| 9 | It seems to me to be straining language to say that only one computer is necessary when one looks to see the actual wording of the subsection : ‘ Causing a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer . ’ ’ |
| 10 | ‘ It is submitted : ( i ) the judge erred in law in his ruling on count 1 ; ( ii ) for an offence to be committed under section 1(1) of the Act there does not have to be the use by the offender of one computer with intent to secure unauthorised access into another computer ; ( iii ) there is no ambiguity in the wording of section 1(1) ( a ) of the Act which clearly refers to an intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer ; ( iv ) section 17(2) and ( 3 ) are applicable to the alleged actions of the respondent in this case ; ( v ) the Act has been drafted so as to deal with the person who misuses a computer to which he has direct ( but unauthorised ) access , as well as a computer into which he is able to secure indirect access by operating another computer . ’ |
| 11 | ‘ In order for a person to commit an offence under section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 does the computer which the person causes to perform any function with the required intent have to be a different computer from the one into which he intends to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held therein ? |
| 12 | ‘ 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 . |
| 13 | ( 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 . |
| 14 | ‘ ( 2 ) A person secures access to any program or data held in a computer if by causing a computer to perform any function he — ( a ) alters or erases the program or data ; ( b ) copies or moves it to any storage medium other than that in which it is held or to a different location in the storage medium in which it is held ; ( c ) uses it ; or ( d ) has it output from the computer in which it is held ( whether by having it displayed or in any other manner ) ; and references to access to a program or data ( and to an intent to secure such access ) shall be read accordingly . |
| 15 | It seems to me to be straining language to say that only one computer is necessary when one looks to see the actual wording of the subsection ; ‘ causing a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer . ’ |
| 16 | They are , ‘ he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer . ’ |
| 17 | However , if one looks at section 3 it is — we do not need to decide the point — at least doubtful whether it would apply to the circumstances of the present case , because the requisite intent which has to be present before section 3 is breached is the intent under subsection ( 2 ) of section 3 , ‘ ( a ) to impair the operation of any computer ’ — that clearly does not apply to what the respondent did here — ‘ ( b ) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer ’ — that again clearly does not apply to what the respondent did here — and ‘ ( c ) to impair the operation of any such program ’ — that does not apply here . |