Taking of information
Taking of information
The increased value of information in computer systems makes it attractive to some criminals. In one case an ex-employee of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was successfully prosecuted for violation of the California computer crime law because he or she had repeatedly accessed the Sheriff's Department criminal justice information computer system.FN83 The defendant was using the information he or she gained in his or her work as a private investigator. The provisions of most computer crime laws prohibit the gaining of "property" through fraud or false pretenses. Property includes information such as the criminal justice information taken by the ex-employee.
Cumulative Supplement
Cases:
The terms "modifying," "altering," and "copying" used in statute defining a felony computer crime as "intentionally exceeding the limits of authorization and damaging, modifying, altering, destroying, copying, disclosing or taking possession of a computer, computer system, computer network or any other property" did not render statute unconstitutionally vague, as these terms conveyed a sufficiently definite warning of the conduct proscribed, even in the electronic context, when measured by common understanding and practice, and statute did not impermissibly delegate basic policy matters to police officers, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis. K.S.A. 21-3755(b)(1)(C). State v. Rupnick, 280 Kan. 720, 125 P.3d 541 (2005); West's Key Number Digest, Telecommunications 1314.
Computer theft of co-workers' email: Evidence supported defendant's conviction for third degree computer theft; defendant, who was employee of company, admitted that he accessed company's computer system and read co-workers' electronic mail, purposeful nature of defendant's actions was well-documented by company database monitor, defendant copied, and thus obtained, co-workers' electronic mail so that he could read it on his system without being detected, and he obtained highly sensitive proprietary information through co-worker e-mail which could have been used to gain an unfair competitive advantage against company. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25c. State v. Gaikwad, 349 N.J. Super. 62, 793 A.2d 39 (App. Div. 2002); West's Key Number Digest, Larceny 65.
Criminal intent: Evidence was sufficient to show that defendant acted with criminal intent, for purposes of prosecution for computer fraud, computer trespass, embezzlement, and attempted extortion; defendant removed 829 human resource files, including non-compete clauses from his work computer on day he gave notice to quit, defendant did not have permission to take files, he transferred files to third party server to which only he had access, and he refused to return files until his debt to employer was forgiven. Dimaio v. Com., 46 Va. App. 755, 621 S.E.2d 696 (2005), aff'd, 2006 WL 3107007 (Va. 2006); West's Key Number Digest, Embezzlement 44(2).
Value of removed business files: Evidence was sufficient to show that value of computer files wrongfully removed from defendant's work computer and transferred to third-party server exceeded $200, as required to support conviction for felony computer fraud; president of defendant's former employer testified that two particular computer files that defendant transferred from work computer to third-party server would cost $11,000 to replace and that all computer files unlawfully transferred would cost in excess of $100,000, vice president testified it would cost "tens of thousands of dollars" to replace missing items, and in-house counsel testified that total cost to replace computer files would be in excess of $50,000, and that, at minimum, it would approximately $3,790 to replace software. West's V.C.A. § 18.2-152.3. Dimaio v. Com., 46 Va. App. 755, 621 S.E.2d 696 (2005), aff'd, 2006 WL 3107007 (Va. 2006); West's Key Number Digest, Telecommunications 1351.