6 ms·

It could be stretched to "unauthorized use of a computer system" which is the legal definition of hacking. It doesn't have to be difficult to qualify as crimina

by seldo 17y ago

It could be stretched to "unauthorized use of a computer system" which is the legal definition of hacking. It doesn't have to be difficult to qualify as criminal.

ErrantX 17y ago
No becaus all those laws require them to prove an intent. Which in this case wouldn't wash :-)
- Retric 17y ago
  You don't need to prove intent to send someone to jail. For some types of crimes intent changes the punishment but that's about it.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Incorrect; for computer misuse laws you have to prove intent - it's the most important part of it. It's the reason most hackers or online criminals are convicted of other crimes. (I work in this area and have studied the US laws quite recently). EDIT: perhaps "show intent" is a better way of putting it.
    - clickguy1 17y ago
      What kinds of other crimes do they use to convict people?
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Theft, fraud, criminal damage: whatever applies really. It's much the same principle as how they took down Al Capone for income tax evasion [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Impris...
    - Retric 17y ago
      Read up on: United States v. Shea, 493 F.3d 1110, (Ct. App. 9th Cir. 2007). Knowing that someone used your password to send information is enough. "The court of appeals acknowledged that analysis of the "transmission" element and its required proof was a novel issue for the court under the specific provisions of 18 USC § 1030(a) (5) (A). Yet, the court interpreted the word transmission under this provision by assimilating this term with the wire fraud crime, which also requires the element of transmission. Thus, the court used the Wire Fraud Act interpretation of the word transmission and held that "circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that the transmission has occurred." Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the prosecution proof that transmissions were associated to defendant's passwords, despite the employee's claim that the network was not secured and that other employees could have accessed those passwords."
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Indeed; but look carefully at the Wire Fraud Act: "To commit wire fraud, one must (1) devise, or intend to devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud another person on the basis of a material representation, and (2) do it with the intent to defraud, and (3) do it through the use of interstate wire facilities (i.e. telecommunications of any kind)." Every single piece of literature (including that case) will include the word "intentionally" somewhere :) It's the bread and butter for hacking laws. (I cant find much on the case you cite specifically, but from what I did find it sounds like the point your discussing is the proof that it was him that did the dirty deed - when other people could have had his password and done it. Which is an important point, but separate from intent - which they would have still had to prove).

by seldo 17y ago

It could be stretched to "unauthorized use of a computer system" which is the legal definition of hacking. It doesn't have to be difficult to qualify as criminal.

ErrantX 17y ago

No becaus all those laws require them to prove an intent. Which in this case wouldn't wash :-)

Retric 17y ago
You don't need to prove intent to send someone to jail. For some types of crimes intent changes the punishment but that's about it.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Incorrect; for computer misuse laws you have to prove intent - it's the most important part of it. It's the reason most hackers or online criminals are convicted of other crimes. (I work in this area and have studied the US laws quite recently). EDIT: perhaps "show intent" is a better way of putting it.
  - clickguy1 17y ago
    What kinds of other crimes do they use to convict people?
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Theft, fraud, criminal damage: whatever applies really. It's much the same principle as how they took down Al Capone for income tax evasion [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Impris...
  - Retric 17y ago
    Read up on: United States v. Shea, 493 F.3d 1110, (Ct. App. 9th Cir. 2007). Knowing that someone used your password to send information is enough. "The court of appeals acknowledged that analysis of the "transmission" element and its required proof was a novel issue for the court under the specific provisions of 18 USC § 1030(a) (5) (A). Yet, the court interpreted the word transmission under this provision by assimilating this term with the wire fraud crime, which also requires the element of transmission. Thus, the court used the Wire Fraud Act interpretation of the word transmission and held that "circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that the transmission has occurred." Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the prosecution proof that transmissions were associated to defendant's passwords, despite the employee's claim that the network was not secured and that other employees could have accessed those passwords."
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Indeed; but look carefully at the Wire Fraud Act: "To commit wire fraud, one must (1) devise, or intend to devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud another person on the basis of a material representation, and (2) do it with the intent to defraud, and (3) do it through the use of interstate wire facilities (i.e. telecommunications of any kind)." Every single piece of literature (including that case) will include the word "intentionally" somewhere :) It's the bread and butter for hacking laws. (I cant find much on the case you cite specifically, but from what I did find it sounds like the point your discussing is the proof that it was him that did the dirty deed - when other people could have had his password and done it. Which is an important point, but separate from intent - which they would have still had to prove).