No, viruses are not mentioned in the Act
Yes because viruses are harmful
Yes because viruses slow down computers
No, viruses are only prohibited when the cause (or intend to cause) impairment of a computer
Rate this question:
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 3ZA
Rate this question:
It would depend on whether they were authorised to access the data on the Hard Drive
Yes, this is using computer equipment for modification of data
No, physical damage isn't covered by the Act
It would depend on whether they were authorised to modify the data on the Hard Drive
Rate this question:
He is authorised to attempt to gain access to they systems
The computer he used and the computer attacked aren't in the UK
He uses the access he gained to commit a further crime
He doesn't test the system properly
Rate this question:
Allow access to data without permission
Commit a fraud
Perform a function
Obtain money
Rate this question:
Up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5000
Up to 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine
Up to 5 years in prison and an unlimited fine
Up to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to £5000
Rate this question:
True, sysadmins are required to do all they can to protect data
False, the Act has no such obligation
False, the Act doesn't specifically mention hacking
True, sysadmins are required to stop hackers at all costs
Rate this question:
No, the act doesn't cover consumer software.
Yes, the software has impaired the operation of the computer so s.3 applies
Yes, the user didn't give the software permission slow down their computer
No, the user gave authorisation for the software to be installed and run therefore the Act does not apply
Rate this question:
The EU
The UK
Globally
England & Wales
Rate this question:
No, you should have password protected your tablet.
Yes, this is an unauthorised modification of your data
Yes, this is an unauthorised access to your tablet and its data
No, if you invite her into your home she has an implied right to access your tablet
Rate this question:
Yes, this is a breach of s.1 of the Act
Yes, this is a breach of s.2 of the Act
No, this is access of a type which is generally authorised to you
No, the Act is not engaged at all
Rate this question:
Anywhere that is a signatory of the Cybercrime Convention
Only the UK
Only the US
Either the UK or the US
Rate this question:
Yes, under s.3
Yes, under s3A
No, there is no intent
No, mail servers permit the sending of mail in this fashion so it was authorised
Rate this question:
Yes, this is protected political speech under s.3(5)(d)
No, these acts do not meet the political speech defence in s.3(5)(d)
Yes, the Act has a general defence for political hacktivism
No, there is no defence for hacktivist speech
Rate this question:
No offence. As the information they sought was not there there is no offence
Section 2 offence. Access with intent to commit another offence
Section 1 offence. Unauthorised access but they could not commit a further offence (impossible)
No offence. Students are allowed to use the LSE system
Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.