In Michigan, a man named Leon Walker is be prosecuted for checking his (now) ex-wife’s email. Apparently, Mr. Walker either possessed, or guessed, his wife’s e-mail password and read e-mails between his wife and her ex-husband. Now, he is being charged under a Michigan anti-hacking statute. Frankly, it sounds like the prosecution arose out of a nasty divorce, as it appears that the husband and wife are also fighting over their child.
Nevertheless, it got me thinking about whether or not California has a similar statute and whether or not a person could be prosecuted in a similar situation. Ultimately, California has a similar anti-hacking statute that is more detailed and can be considered more broad. The statute provides in pertinent part:
Except as provided…, any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:
(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.
(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services.
(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters, damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(6) Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network in violation of this section.
(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network.
(9) Knowingly and without permission uses the Internet domain name of another individual, corporation, or entity in connection with the sending of one or more electronic mail messages, and thereby damages or causes damage to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
[See Cal. Pen. Code § 502]
Thus, as you can see from these provisions, you can be committing a crime for simply using a friend’s computer without permission, using your neighbor’s wi-fi without permission, or altering documents on another person’s computer. What’s more, if you violate this statute, you can be fined up to $10,000.00 and/or serve time in jail, depending on which provision you violate. Ultimately, the penalties vary for severity of the violation.
When reviewing this statute, I could not help but think that it can be a powerful tool for small business owners. Ultimately, our office sees its fair share of business owners who were embezzled by their employees. Usually, the employee/embezzler is a person who is trusted and begins taking money because they feel they are entitled to it. However, the employee/embezzler forgets that the business owner still needs to pay other employees, vendors as well as taxes.
Now that computers are so prevalent in the workplace, this statute could be used to help track down employee/embezzlers. Business owners should be crafting employee policies that specifically dictate how employees may use the business’ computers. If employees violate the computer policy, they can be fired. If the employee is suspected of embezzlement, they can be prosecuted under the computer hacking statute, as they were likely using the computer without proper authorization. This may help gain evidence for an embezzlement trial as well as a civil lawsuit. Ultimately, the anti-hacking statute provides small businesses with additional protections… the question is… Are small businesses taking advantage of these protections?
No comments:
Post a Comment