[cookiecaper]

I'm not familiar with that case, but I don't think an accusation that using a text mode browser like Lynx constitutes "hacking" would stand up to any type of scrutiny. (I'm not a lawyer and I'm in the US; things may differ in the UK).

Lawyers will make the most egregious leaps and grasps to paint the opposing party in the worst light possible, especially in the early stages of the case, because if they don't claim that Lynx is a "hacker's tool" in the initial pleadings, then it may be looked upon with suspicion if they try to raise that point later. So they are essentially trying to reserve as many potentially beneficial claims as they can at once, including (and especially) any claim that may portend that the other party is a devious scoundrel with the worst possible intentions.

Lawyers will thus front-load with every kind of tenuous, ridiculous accusation they can (without presenting a significant risk to the licensing), expecting some of it to get "laughed out of court", just so that on the off chance that it doesn't, it will help their case.

I'm sure a real lawyer would contest that to some extent, and I'm sure there is slightly more nuance to it than that, but that is my layman's assessment and I think it is roughly accurate.

The takeaway is not to take legal pleadings too seriously, because the goal is not to find justice per se. It is for your side to win, to get what it wants, under the assumption that that automatically represents justice.

[masswerk]

Please note that this wasn't related to some lawyer actions, but the Metropolitan Police's Computer Crime Unit acting on the basis of suspected offence under the Computer Misuse Act. The offensive act occurred while the browser was used for making a donation at a tsunami related website of the Disasters and Emergency Committee, where the browser showed up as an "unusual event" in the access logs.

I believe, the case is part of a more general theme (which is, indeed, related to the EME topic): There's a perceptible will to regulate any kind of browsing into consumer-style app usage. E.g., manually entering a URL ("URL hacking") has been considered a fraud attempt; using a browser which only supports the basic protocol set and not all of it is considered as possibly related to intrusion and terrorism (oh, that T-word again). In the end, we may wake up with the law enforcing a certain, standardized life style. We may wake up with a deregulated companies and strictly regulated citizens.

[cookiecaper]

I understand you're referring to a criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecutors are, from my limited observations as a layperson with a minor interest in law, more guilty of this than anyone. They go hyper-aggressive on charges, expecting them to be pared down. Some of it is a ploy to get a quick plea. There is an element of calling the bluff, and the defendant's attorney would have to evaluate the situation and advise whether or not that was smart in the given case.

This is not to say there aren't ridiculous prosecutions that run their course, especially in niche areas that aren't widely understood and thus hard to create public outcry over, like insider trading or computer crimes. It's just to indicate that using Lynx, by itself, is not considered criminal by any sane person. It's a nit the prosecutors pick when they're trying to nail you on something larger, a detail they exaggerate to attempt to create the impression of one's villainous ways.

Just don't want people to uninstall Lynx in fear that they'll be arrested for firing it up. :)

EDIT: From re-reading your comment, it seems you're suggesting that this wasn't part of a larger operation, but that actual charges were brought because of a single aberrant entry in the access logs? I find this hard to imagine, but if true, I would guess that this is more along the lines of "abuse of police power to harass an enemy" than "literally a random dude who just visited our site in a text-based browser". I've read access logs for many years now and even small sites get all kinds of weird things in there, it doesn't seem plausible that something like that would flag off any kind of detector. Do you have a link to more details about the case?