3 ms·
Yes, it's really not clear that any crime was committed. The relevant section of the Canadian Criminal Code[1] requires either fraudulent intent or some actual
by eigenvector 8y ago
Yes, it's really not clear that any crime was committed. The relevant section of the Canadian Criminal Code[1] requires either fraudulent intent or some actual manipulation/destruction of the server - not simply downloading data. It seems like overreach by the police to distract from the fact that the government failed to secure private data.
[1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-342.1.html http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-342.1.h...
- inetknght 8y agoHonestly, I'd like to see the kid's lawyers push back and claim damages against the province and its contractors. How else shall we force problems like this to be fixed?
- kazinator 8y agoAnyone familiar with the Streisand effect would have predicted that this would in fact result in this failure getting as much attention as the circumstances can imaginably furnish.
- jt2190 8y ago> The relevant section of the Canadian Criminal Code[1] requires either fraudulent intent or some actual manipulation/destruction of the server. Not quite. The test is: > Everyone is guilty... who, fraudulently and without colour of right, obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service (including... the storage or retrieval of computer data) The Crown can argue that the documents were retrieved/obtained using manipulation of the server (since the public URLs were manipulated to find non-public URLs.)