This article examines the terminology used in defining the offences created by the Computer Misuse Act 1993. Comparison is made with similar legislation from other jurisdictions which influenced its drafting, particularly in the United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act 1990. It appears that the guiding principle behind the drafting of this Act is comprehensiveness - the offences are framed so as to cover every conceivable misuse of computers but this has been achieved only at the cost of ease of interpretation.