Damage to computer or component

Damage to computer or component

Most computer crime laws contain a provision identical or similar to: Any person who maliciously accesses, alters, deletes, damages, destroys or disrupts the operation of any computer system, computer network, computer program, or data, shall be guilty of a public offense.FN86 The statutes do not explicitly define "damage," "destroy," "delete" or "alter," allowing common-sense definitions to prevail. "Access" is defined in most statutes to include virtually any use of a computer system, or any attempted use.

The damage done to a computer system can involve physical damage to the computer,FN87 and "logical damage" by changes in programming that keep the system from functioning properly.

Some statutes provide increased protection against harm to certain defined computer functions. Missouri defines computer tampering to include: "denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services."FN88 Connecticut draws a finer distinction, including the causing of "disruption or degradation of computer services" to authorized users within its definition of computer crime.FN89

However, unauthorized access involves more than merely calling a computer by telephone.FN90

Every state, except Vermont has some type of computer crime or computer abuse statute. Five states have specific virus legislation: California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota and Texas.FN91 In unauthorized access cases, there may be a duty to mitigate the damages.

Cumulative Supplement

Cases:

Anti-hacking law: Statute proscribing unlawful access to a computer and/or related property for purpose of altering, damaging or destroying them does not allow an authorized computer user to ascertain specifically what alteration, damage or destruction is prohibited, and thus, the statute is void for vagueness; absent a requirement that the actor's alteration, damage or destruction must occur without authorization, the statute literally permits the prosecution of an authorized user for an alteration as innocuous and innocent as the deletion of an e-mail message. Com. v. Cocke, 58 S.W.3d 891 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001), review denied, (Nov. 14, 2001); West's Key Number Digest, Malicious Mischief 1.