-15penalized. The necessary amendment will be moved by the Administration at the Committee stage.”10 30. The Secretary for Security also referred, in the Second Reading Debate, to the Subcommittee’s conclusions and added: “There was also discussion in the subcommittee of the intention behind the new offence of access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent proposed in clause 6 of the Bill. This offence is aimed at penalizing access to a computer for acts preparatory but falling short of the commission of a fraud. Examples would include someone obtaining access to computerized bank records to obtain details of credit balances for later fraudulent use or an employee writing instructions to a computer that will result in due course in the computer making automatic payments to his account. Currently such activity would not amount to an offence. Once the fraud is put into effect this section would no longer be relevant as other provisions of the Theft Ordinance will apply.” He went on to say that an amendment to be made to clause 6 of the Bill (ie s 161), concerning access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent, would modify the provision as it appeared in the Bill so that it covered access to obtain data in transit in any part of a computer system with dishonest or criminal intent.11 31. In the Bill submitted to the Legislative Council the proposed interpretive provision in s 161(2) had contained a paragraph (a) which read: “a person obtains access to a computer if (and only if) he causes a computer to perform any function”. That paragraph was deleted by amendment moved by the government. 10 11 Hong Kong Legislative Council Debates, 21 April 1993, 2931 (emphasis added). Hong Kong Legislative Council Debates, 21 April 1995, 2934