Only a very small proportion of computer crimes come to the surface, often accidentally, and of these only a small proportion are brought to the attention of the police. Even then, it is difficult to prove that a crime has been committed owing to the inadequacies in laws designed for more traditional offenses. The common law definition of theft requires the removal of actual goods, but for the computer criminal, access to data is sufficient. The need for changes in the law and the potential role of the Australian Law Reform Commission are still subject to question. An additional impediment to the conviction of the computer criminal is the capacity for information technology to cross State and national boundaries. The variation between the laws of individual States and the reluctance of the State to accept documentary evidence are grounds for further criticism. Twenty references are provided. (Author abstract modified)