Tom, Does the intent element deal with the actual intent to access or does it deal with knowingly committing an act which results in access? e.g. where you would still be found liable if you didn't intend to commit the culpable act but intended the action which resulted in act? This may be splitting legal hairs, but if a person commits an act where they didn't mean to access a computer, but intended to use the software which resulted in access, the person could still be found liable. On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 10:37 AM, Tom Tintera wrote: > Randal did use one of the passwords to copy a larger password file and > also > installed a back door through Intel's firewall. > However, ORS 164.377 states that:4) Any person who knowingly and without > authorization uses, accesses or attempts to access any computer, > computer > system, computer network, or any computer software, program, > documentation > or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, > commits computer crime. Class A misdemeanor. > > Caution is advised if there is no authorization. > > Tom Tintera > Senior Deputy District Attorney > Washington County District Attorney > Hillsboro, Oregon > 503 846-3462 > tom_tintera@private > > > >> ---------- >> >> I don't know how people on this list feel about the Randal Schwartz >> trial, but I think the facts are a bit different than "he didn't even >> try any of them". He did use them and his intent was to bypass the >> system administrators attempts to enforce their policy. You can read >> more lots of places. For example: >> >> http://www.cs.uidaho.edu/~frincke/research/security/articles/schwartz3.t >> xt >> >> BTW, I knew randal in the early 80's when he worked at Sequent. >> --phil >> >> >> > > T. Kenji Sugahara Chief Operating Officer counterclaim Phone: 541-484-9235 Fax: 541-484-9193
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 15:14:17 PDT