View source for Proving computer damage

==Proving computer damage==

Colorado has a typical provision defining computer damage:[[FN27]]

Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses, alters, damages, or destroys any computer, computer system, or computer network or any computer software, program, documentation, or data contained in such computer, computer system, or computer network commits computer crime. This law requires proof of the following elements:

*'''Alteration:''' Though not explicitly defined in any of the computer crime laws, this term applies to any change in a computer system. As such, it is parallel to access, but requires that something more than mere access be accomplished. If a defendant has accessed the system, looked at files, and not changed any data, it can be argued that he or she has not altered anything and does not fit within the definitions in this section. Such cases are usually prosecuted pursuant to computer trespass statutes.[[FN28]]

*'''Computer system:''' Most computer crime prosecutions clearly involve access to a computer system.[[FN29]] There are occasional difficulties in application of the definition of "computer system" to paperwork that is intended to be used in a manual system, or to output from a computer system.

*'''Knowledge:''' Often the key issue in a computer crime prosecution is whether the defendant knew that the actions he or she took would alter the computer system in a way that was not authorized. Where employees are charged with computer damage, they may be able to argue that they acted with the intent of improving the computer system, or pursuant to authorization.

Where outsiders have gained access to a computer system they will be more likely to argue that they were unaware of the consequences of their access, and did not believe that they would alter the system. Frequently there is circumstantial proof that contradicts the argument.