-612. The reasons of the judge are likewise mainly given over to the question of whether the appellant intended to participate in the attack. He also dealt briefly with the question of construction. He said of paragraph (a) of section 59(1A) “obviously, over 500,000 ‘requests’ within 11 minutes would not be the established way of functioning of the computer under attack”. As to paragraph (c), he said that the requests had added data “even when they were of such minute amount”. Paragraph (a) 13. I do not think that it is sufficient to say that the computer functioned as it had been established to do because it dealt with the attackers’ requests in accordance with what it had been programmed to do. Generally speaking, computers can only do what they have been programmed to do and such a narrow construction would deprive paragraph (a) of any effect. This conclusion is reinforced by the words “notwithstanding that the misuse may not impair the operation of the computer or a program held in the computer or the reliability of data held in the computer”. Mr Shek was hard put to offer an example of an act which came within his construction of “other than as it has been established to function by … its owner” which was not excluded by the following words. In my opinion the functions for which the computer is established to do are not so much concerned with the way it works (or fails to work) but what it was intended to do. The way it works depends upon how it was constructed by its manufacturer. But the statute is concerned with what the owner has set it up to do. The website and its server were established to provide banking services, not to deal with a multitude of requests made for no purpose except to inconvenience the bank and its customers and generate publicity for the attackers.