For the dismissal of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS -v- WIMBLEDON YOUTH COURT

This is a petition for the dismissal of case DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS -v- WIMBLEDON YOUTH COURT, to be heard at the Divisional Court, Queens Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, LONDON.

The case is an appeal by the Crown in regards to an earlier case, R -v- DAVID JAMES LENNON, regarding actions accountable for under Section 3, Computer Misuse Act 1990.

R -v- DAVID JAMES LENNON refers to an email-based Denial of Service attack on DOMESTIC AND GENERAL GROUP PLC in January-February 2004.

The prosecution argued that by sending 'x' amount of emails, you are adding data to the mail server and recipient's computers, thus modifying the server and recipients hard drive, an act that is illegal under Sec 3, CMA 1990 if the modification is not authorised.

In reponse, the defense argued that that Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 was designed to protect computer users against the receipt of viruses, trojan horses and worms. The defense further argued that by operating a mail server, you are authorising the sending of plain-text 'standard' emails to your domain and computers within your control. However, it was argued that by sending a virus or PAYLOAD via email, you are FURTHER modifying the third party computer, which would be WITHOUT CONSENT, breaching Section 3, CMA 1990.

The magistrate in the case, Justice K. Grant, ruled in favour of the defense, stating that the CMA 1990 could only be called on if a further modification other than the reciept and storage of emails took place, i.e. deployment of a further payload/virus.

The case was therefore dismissed against the defendant.

While we, the undersigned, do not condone the actions of the youth, neither do we condone the sending of mass email ('email bombing') or spam email, We do believe that by operating a mail server, you are authorising the receipt of emails / data to machines that you operate, provided they are in plain text format, and NOT carrying any further payload.

We, however, are concerned about the implications this case could have on current UK Legislation. We do not believe you can define "authorisation" and "unauthorisation" in terms of sending and receiving email.

If the appeal against the decision of R -v- DAVID JAMES LENNON is successful, the implications of the internet community as a whole would be huge. If someone sent a personal email from a work email system, would it become unauthorised? Could people be prosecuted for telling their loved one they would be late home from work? Could people be prosecuted for breaking up a relationship over email, sending images over email, mailing people without consent?

We do not wish to ask people first whether we can send emails to them. It defies the purpose of electronic communication and the Internet. The purpose of the Internet and Email systems is to allow worldwide communication, from whoever and wherever.

We therefore call for the dismissal of the appeal DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS -v- WIMBLEDON YOUTH COURT in regards to case R -v- DAVID JAMES LENNON to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice.