happy days
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2017
- Messages
- 66
A quick investigation and 20 points deduction before May should do it. Maybe 30 to be on the safe side.
Investigation in Liverpool's 'hacking' of our computer systems
- Thread starter Franny's toilet roll
- Start date
half & half derby scarf
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 848
The Dippers would start a gov.uk petition on this idea if the reverse situation occurred.
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
Completely agree. Said several times on here. Nothing will happen.
bewildered
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 320
Spygate reports sent to FA by computer expert
Martyn Ziegler, Matt Dickinson
January 15 2020, 12:01am, The Times
Liverpool did not accept any liability or wrongdoing CLIVE BRUNSKILL/GETTY IMAGES
Two reports from a forensic computer expert detailing alleged hacking of Manchester City’s scouting system by Liverpool staff are among documents being examined by the FA.
The governing body has been considering whether to take action over the case for several months and has asked both clubs a series of questions over the Spygate affair, which led to Liverpool paying City £1 million in a confidential settlement in 2013.
As revealed by The Times in September, Liverpool’s sporting director Michael Edwards and two former City scouts, Dave Fallows and Julian Ward, were named in the settlement.
The forensic computer expert tracked suspicious logins to the Scout7 system and the IP addresses where the logins were made from. It is understood he identified hundreds of occasions when it was alleged that the login of Rob Newman, a Manchester City scout, was used illicitly by senior Liverpool staff from June 2012 to February 2013.
The FA’s disciplinary department will have to decide whether Edwards, Fallows and Ward should face misconduct charges. The £1 million settlement was made without Liverpool accepting any liability or wrongdoing.
The Premier League has so far declined to become involved despite its rule that clubs must behave with the “utmost good faith” towards each other.
The thing about the no liability in the settlement is pretty standard in business so I wouldn't read anything into that. I've signed a couple of them over the years ;-)
The fact that they coughed up a million quid is quite revealing. Its a big enough number to reflect the serious nature of the offence. In the US a baseball coach did proper jail time for a very similar offence (I think that case also had some indirect connections to FSG). So they may well have lost control of their arses when it was clear they were bang to rights. The other snippet from that was that they logged on using the account of a City employee. I had been under the impression that one or two staff had left City to join Liverpool and our IT staff hadn't cancelled their logins, which would have placed some of the blame onto city's IT bods. As it is its actually much more serious.
Of course... ultimately nothing will happen...
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
If the information in The Times is correct ie a City employee’s account login was used to access their online account, then this is a serious breach of The Computer Misuse Act 1990 and whatever the FA or PL find will have to be reported to the Police
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents
The offence carries a fine or several years in jail. Liverpool have supported the offenders so, they can’t claim it was done without their knowledge they seem to have also used the information to their advantage and having paid a large sum in compensation despite admitting no liability or wrongdoing, they are clearly culpable City should have reported this to the Police and The FA
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents
The offence carries a fine or several years in jail. Liverpool have supported the offenders so, they can’t claim it was done without their knowledge they seem to have also used the information to their advantage and having paid a large sum in compensation despite admitting no liability or wrongdoing, they are clearly culpable City should have reported this to the Police and The FA
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Think they'll hang to coaches out to dry if it gets tight.
Yes they were promoted after the breach but that could have been for anything, making a good brew/sucking clippitys dick etc.
Dip FC will deny any knowledge of events & only paid us £1m as a goodwill gesture.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
They should have done that in the first place; denied all knowledge, sacked the guys and reported them to the police, the fact that they admitted knowledge of the offence and did not report it then subsequently promoted employees, for whatever reason, who had committed a criminal offence now means they have no defence. Maybe this was City's plan all along
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Have Liverpool actually admitted knowledge?
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
From the CPS website regarding possible offences committed by Liverpool FC's employees
Maybe @petrusha with his legal background may have some thoughts
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-misuse
Section 3A CMA - Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under Section 1, 3 or 3ZA
The maximum sentence on indictment is two years' imprisonment.
The rationale behind the creation of this offence is the market in electronic malware or 'hacker tools'; which can be used for breaking into, or compromising, computer systems.
The prosecution has to prove the defendant had the necessary intent. Possession alone is not an offence.
Section 3A(2) of the CMA covers the supplying or offering to supply an article 'likely' to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of an offence, contrary to Sections 1 or 3. 'Likely' is not defined in the CMA but, in construing what is 'likely', prosecutors should look at the functionality of the article and at what, if any, thought the suspect gave to who would use it. For example, whether the article was circulated to a closed and vetted list of IT security professionals or was posted openly. In the offence under Section 3A(2), the relevant mens rea is 'belief' and mere suspicion is not enough.
In determining the likelihood of an article being used (or misused) to commit a criminal offence, prosecutors should consider the following:
Maybe @petrusha with his legal background may have some thoughts
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-misuse
Section 3A CMA - Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under Section 1, 3 or 3ZA
The maximum sentence on indictment is two years' imprisonment.
The rationale behind the creation of this offence is the market in electronic malware or 'hacker tools'; which can be used for breaking into, or compromising, computer systems.
The prosecution has to prove the defendant had the necessary intent. Possession alone is not an offence.
Section 3A(2) of the CMA covers the supplying or offering to supply an article 'likely' to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of an offence, contrary to Sections 1 or 3. 'Likely' is not defined in the CMA but, in construing what is 'likely', prosecutors should look at the functionality of the article and at what, if any, thought the suspect gave to who would use it. For example, whether the article was circulated to a closed and vetted list of IT security professionals or was posted openly. In the offence under Section 3A(2), the relevant mens rea is 'belief' and mere suspicion is not enough.
In determining the likelihood of an article being used (or misused) to commit a criminal offence, prosecutors should consider the following:
- Has the article been developed primarily, deliberately and for the sole purpose of committing a CMA offence (i.e. unauthorised access to computer material)?
- Is the article available on a wide scale commercial basis and sold through legitimate channels?
- Is the article widely used for legitimate purposes?
- Does it have a substantial installation base?
- What was the context in which the article was used to commit the offence compared with its original intended purpose
- Fraud Act 2006
Prosecutors may wish to consider whether the 'article' might be intended for use in fraud and consider whether there is an offence contrary to Section 7 and/or Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006. For example phishing (false financial e-mails), pharming (cloned false websites for fraud) and Trojan installation (viruses) could be prosecuted under the Fraud Act.
An offence of making or supplying articles for use in fraud, contrary to Section 7, is punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. An offence of possession of articles for use in fraud contrary to section 6 is punishable by a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment.