Proving computer trespass

Proving computer trespass

Connecticut has a typical provision prohibiting computer trespass:FN30

A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer system when, knowing that he is not authorized to do so, he or she accesses or causes to be accessed any computer system without authorization.

• Access: Connecticut, like most states defining the term, includes instruction of, communication with, storing data in, or retrieving data from a computer system in the definition of access. It is a definition intended to cover virtually any interaction with a computer system. Consequently, it is likely that there will be proof that some form of access to a computer has taken place. Once again, the most difficult part of proof of access is establishing that the defendant is the person who accessed the computer in question. Usually there is documentation to establish that the computer has been "accessed," or in its absence, circumstantial evidence in the form of testimony that but for an access, the situation would not be as it is.

• Computer system: Most computer trespass prosecutions clearly involve access to a computer system. There are occasionally difficulties of applying the definition of "computer system" to paperwork, which is intended to be used in a manual system, or to output from a computer system.

• Without authorization: Connecticut is one of the few states to codify a defense to this element of the crime:FN31

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a computer system that:

• The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system or a person empowered to license access thereto, had authorized him or her to access;
• the person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have authorized him or her to access without payment of any consideration; or
• the person reasonably could not have known that his or her access was unauthorized.

Where there is no equivalent of a "no trespassing" sign when an individual accesses a computer system, it will be difficult to establish that he or she knew that access was prohibited. Where, however, it was necessary to try a number of access codes before gaining entry, the continued effort might provide the proof of knowledge necessary to satisfy this element of the crime.