3 ms·

Sadly, you are wrong. This same statute exists in many states. (720 ILCS 5/17-51) (was 720 ILCS 5/16D-3) Sec. 17-51. Computer tampering. (a) A person c

Sadly, you are wrong. This same statute exists in many states. (720 ILCS 5/17-51) (was 720 ILCS 5/16D-3) Sec. 17-51. Computer tampering. (a) A person commits computer tampering when he or she knowingly and without the authorization of a computer's owner or in excess of the authority granted to him or her: (1) Accesses or causes to be accessed a computer or any part thereof, a computer network, or a program or data; (2) Accesses or causes to be accessed a computer or any part thereof, a computer network, or a program or data, and obtains data or services; [...] (a-10) For purposes of subsection (a), accessing a computer network is deemed to be with the authorization of a computer's owner if: (1) the owner authorizes patrons, customers, or guests to access the computer network and the person accessing the computer network is an authorized patron, customer, or guest and complies with all terms or conditions for use of the computer network that are imposed by the owner; [...] (b) Sentence. (1) A person who commits computer tampering as set forth in subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(5) or subsection (a-5) of this Section is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. (2) A person who commits computer tampering as set forth in subdivision (a)(2) of this Section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and a Class 4 felony for the second or subsequent offense. [Class A misdemeanor is one year in a county jail. Class 4 felony is 3 years in prison.]

icedchai 5y ago
Sorry, I’ll trust the EFF. TOS violations aren’t “tampering.” The fake account was created through authorized means, etc.
codingdave 5y ago
Those "..." that you put in to replace some of the content means we cannot really follow this post. Statutes are laid out with heaps of criteria, and often complex and/or logic. Cherry picking a few sentences to share here shows that you might have some truth to your claims... but we'd need to read the full statutes and know which jurisdictions you are talking about to really get into it. I do concur that the fact that ToS is mentioned here makes it worth doing the research and not just saying automatically that it is a civil case, but we'd need much more info do give anything other than the #1 answer from law school for all questions: "It depends." At the same time, I doubt there are many DAs who would prosecute a criminal case over the email a competitor used to sign up for a service.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  The statute number is in my post. It would take literally two seconds to Google the statute number. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K17-51 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=0...

icedchai 5y ago

Sorry, I’ll trust the EFF. TOS violations aren’t “tampering.” The fake account was created through authorized means, etc.

codingdave 5y ago

Those "..." that you put in to replace some of the content means we cannot really follow this post. Statutes are laid out with heaps of criteria, and often complex and/or logic. Cherry picking a few sentences to share here shows that you might have some truth to your claims... but we'd need to read the full statutes and know which jurisdictions you are talking about to really get into it. I do concur that the fact that ToS is mentioned here makes it worth doing the research and not just saying automatically that it is a civil case, but we'd need much more info do give anything other than the #1 answer from law school for all questions: "It depends." At the same time, I doubt there are many DAs who would prosecute a criminal case over the email a competitor used to sign up for a service.

kingcharles 5y ago
The statute number is in my post. It would take literally two seconds to Google the statute number. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K17-51 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=0...