[matthewheath]

This is covered by the Computer Misuse Act 1990 — specifically Section 3A which covers obtaining articles for use with related offences covered in Sections 1, 3, and 3ZA of the Act.

It's a crime to own the software intending to use it even if you don't actually use it. Arguably, the purchaser intended to use it at the point they made the purchase; people don't typically purchase software like this accidentally (of course there are obvious exceptions like perhaps security researchers wanting to decompile it to understand how to block it in the future, etc.)

[pbhjpbhj]

I think it's 3ZA(1)(c) that's changed - by the Serious Crimes Act 2015 - in that this allows that an action can simply "create a serious risk of, damage of a material kind".

AFAIR that's different to how the act was prior to SCA2015. Indeed this section including "material kind" strongly suggests that the original intent was that the Act would punish material damage, rather than a trumped up suggestion by the CPS (on whomevers behalf) that an act might be reckless as to whether it creates an increased risk of serious damage.

This legislation seems to work like "well you went on a road near some property, which is exactly what a criminal who was going to destroy that property would do, so you're clearly guilty". It seems somewhat over-reaching to me.

[matthewheath]

The whole of 3ZA is new — that didn't exist before the Serious Crimes Act 2015.

However, they do have to actually take action and material damage is defined by s3ZA(2) with "damage to human welfare" (s3ZA(2)(a)) constrained by s3ZA(3).

It is unlikely that the threshold for a charge under S3ZA would be met. The more likely charge is S1 (unauthorised access) or S3A(3) which makes it an offence to obtain any article intending to use it to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1, 3 or 3ZA — you don't even have to actually use the software to be criminalised, merely possessing it is enough provided the prosecution can prove your intent beyond reasonable doubt.

You can read the Explanatory Notes for the SCA 2015 amendments that altered the CMA 1990 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/notes/division/3/... for background on why these changes were made.

[heyyyouu]

Thank you! This is extremely informative.

[pbhjpbhj]

Thanks for your input MatthewHeath.

[heyyyouu]

Thank you for this! Very much appreciated.

[matthewheath]

You're welcome.