Miscellaneous laws

From HORSE - Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation.
Revision as of 12:48, 18 February 2009 by Mdpeters (talk | contribs) (New page: ==Miscellaneous laws== A North Carolina law makes a threat to damage a computer and related materials extortion and classifies the crime as a Class H felony. Therefore, a threat, to erase...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miscellaneous laws

A North Carolina law makes a threat to damage a computer and related materials extortion and classifies the crime as a Class H felony. Therefore, a threat, to erase a number of computer files if the operator of a bulletin board system failed to transfer money to the individuals making the threat, would be extortion under this law.FN30

Virginia's law defines forgery to include "the creation, alteration, or deletion of any computer data contained in any computer, which if done on a tangible document or instrument would constitute forgery" under Virginia law.FN31

Alaska specifically includes deception of a computer as a crime in its statutes. This precludes the argument that only an individual, not a machine, can be deceived.FN32

Receiving or concealing any proceeds resulting from a violation of the Tennessee computer crime law is an offense under that statute.FN33

Some states make it illegal to copy computer programs, software information and data without authorization.FN34

In California disruption of computer services is also a crime. That statute provides that any person who 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 commits a public offense.FN35 Connecticut also has a statute dealing with computer disruption.FN36

Cumulative Supplement

Cases:

Forgery statute not applicable to spoofed e-mail: Computer program, which was used by defendant to send e-mails, including commercial solicitations, appearing to originate from another person or identity, was not a device, apparatus, equipment, or article specifically designed for use in counterfeiting or otherwise forging written instruments within meaning of forgery statute, as would be required to convict defendant of criminal possession of forgery devices, where the program in question could be used for other very legitimate purposes. McKinney's Penal Law § 170.40(1). People v. Carmack, 34 A.D.3d 1299, 827 N.Y.S.2d 383 (4th Dep't 2006), leave to appeal denied, 8 N.Y.3d 879, 832 N.Y.S.2d 491, 864 N.E.2d 621 (2007); West's Key Number Digest, Forgery 17.