I believe there seems to be a little law about [1]computer fraud and abuse that could have put a stop to those shenanigans pretty quickly.

I understand what he did, but he was skating on very thin ice.

Not that I blame him.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

I've a feeling there wasn't in the 90s, there is now.

It's still and always was a shitty trick to play though.

Computer Misuse Act came into law in 1990.

Section 3 very clearly applies (see below). I also think it's very close to fraudulent behaviour and is certainly unethical.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;

(b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and

(c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.

(2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—

(a)to impair the operation of any computer;

(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;

(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data;

(d)to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.

It seems to me that almost every current trend in 'updating' software, aka 'enshittification', transgresses these reasonable requirements.

See also Amazon randomly deleting Kindle content if you turn on WiFi after a gap of "airplane mode" for a random time.

Forced reboots of Windows.

I'm fairly sure that amongst the reams of T&C's that accompany such enshitification these days there will be a clause that gets them out of it and ensures that any lawsuits are settled in a friendly court with their uncle being the judge and their cousins being their lawyers for whom you will end up paying the legal fees.

Keyword is 'unauthorised'.

T&Cs you agreed to [sure they're three weeks long and written partly in ogham script, but you ticked the box] say you authorise them doing things.

Exactly. Big Tech normalises the crappiness of software by hiding behind the notions of "we're always updating stuff and making it better" and "keep paying us to do that". Just look at the number of apps on phones and tablets which have regular updates that says "bug fixes and performance improvements". And by regular, it could be several times a month or even week.

They've basically done one better than the bloke in this story by not only setting up a direct debit to take the money but putting it under the guise of "it's not just extortion, this is a contract to agree to be extorted every month".

It does raise some important questions about progress in IT. The updates are there because we now expect them. The environment changes, so the software changes. Tech changes. The threat landscape changes. We all know WHY we have to keep paying for updates to things, but is there a better way?

Thin ice indeed. In the Netherlands, even in the absence of a specific law prohibiting this, it would be seen as an "unlawful act" (Dutch: onrechtmatige daad), which could result in quite severe penalties.

He should have just called it a "subscription fee" and it would have been perfectly legal...

>>He should have just called it a "subscription fee" and it would have been perfectly legal...

Indeed - SaaS in embryonic form.... Have a beer for an astute observation this early on a Friday....

The currency in the story was pounds, your link is to an American law

The [1]Computer Misuse act was introduced in 1990 and appears (to my non-solicitor eyes) to cover what happened in the story.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents

I'm not sure when the Bill went through Parlement though...

A Bill becomes an Act when it received Royal Assent. If it became an Act in 1990 the earliest it might have been in Parliament would be 1989.

My software used to generate a unique licence number on each PC it was installed on and the customer had 30 days to pay their bill. Each time they ran the software they were reminded of this and how many days remained to pay. Once I'd received payment I gave them a code number which granted a perpetual licence on that PC. Simple and legal and everyone knew where they stood.

Did the regomi[sz]er pick the name "Bill" because he kept presenting a request for payment? Or was it alluring to a certain Mr Gates who had a propensity for killing computers on a monthly basis?

More of a story for Who, Me? isn't it?

This story has the smell of those things that we'd all have liked to do to get our well-justified vengeance on a cheapskate or deadbeat customer but which we didn't end up actually doing because it would have been totally unprofessional, whatever the legal minefield we might have been stepping into.

No, instead you look at the amount you're going to lose on the deal if you let them get away with it, how much it would cost you to sue to recover that money, whether that hassle is worth it...

And, most of the time, you just write it off and quietly spread the word through your local grapevine that they are not worth working for unless you get at least some of the money up front. Let THEIR reputation take the hit, not yours.

If the evidence was solid enough I think I might have written it up without actually laying the blame on any particular individual, told him that that was what the software had found and there was the bill. If he wanted to challenge it in court it was up to him. He might then have been put in a position of trying to defend his staff. But then giving evidence in court used to be part of my job so it might have bothered me less than Bill. That past career tells me that it's not uncommon for businesses to be ripped off by employees and not be aware of it.

Given his comments about the warehouse manager, I'm wondering if he went on to work for Fujitsu...