LesothoPenal Code Act, 2010, Misuse of Property of Another
Penal Code Act, 2010 (Act No. 6 of 2012), s. 62
archived copy
Read from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived 2024. Publisher's page: https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/act/2012/6/eng@2012-03-09In force since .
A computer misuse rule binding public and private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Do not extract information from a computer or electronic storage device owned by another person where you have no reasonable cause to believe the owner would allow that extraction.NIST AI RMFMAP 4.1
- Do not interfere with a computer or electronic storage device owned by another, or the data or programmes on it, without the owner's consent, if you intend to secure an advantage for yourself or cause damage.no control in the NIST AI RMF
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 4.1Approaches for mapping AI technology and legal risks of its components – including the use of third-party data or software – are in place, followed, and documented, as are risks of infringement of a third party’s intellectual property or other rights.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Criminal exposure note
Section 62(2) makes the conduct an offence, but the section is not listed in the Code's penalty Schedule; under section 109(3) the court imposes whatever penalty another law provides for the offence, or, failing that, a penalty the court thinks fit given the offence's gravity and the Sentencing Guidelines issued by the Chief Justice, rather than a fixed fine or imprisonment cap stated in the Code itself.
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Section 62(2) makes it an offence to gain access to a computer or electronic storage device owned by another and extract information the owner would not allow, or interfere with the device or its data to gain an advantage or cause damage. It imposes no duty to create, keep, produce or review a log or record. Section 4, the Code's territorial application, is not invoked by section 62, so no hook is read from it.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Section 62(2) makes it an offence for a person who either lawfully or unlawfully gains access to a computer or electronic storage device owned by another to (a) extract from it information which he or she has no reasonable cause to believe the owner would allow to be extracted, or (b) interfere with the device or the information it contains, without the owner's consent and with no reasonable ground to believe such consent would be given, intending to secure an advantage for themselves or cause damage to the electronic data or programmes.
The offence is framed around the owner's likely consent to the extraction rather than around defeating a technical access control, so its application to a person who reads or collects data from a genuinely public, unauthenticated web page, where the owner has made the content available to any visitor, is unsettled; no reported Lesotho case construes section 62 in that context.
Section 62 is not among the sections listed in the Code's penalty Schedule, so under section 109(3) a court convicting a person under section 62 imposes such penalty as another law provides or, absent one, such penalty as it thinks fit having regard to the offence's gravity and the Sentencing Guidelines issued by the Chief Justice, rather than a fixed statutory cap.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app crawls the web or trains models.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .