Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Password hacker gets probation (& other electronic crimes)
Message-ID: <244@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-May-84 12:38:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: mb2c.244
Posted: Fri May 11 12:38:05 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 11:29:41 EDT
References: <7655@watmath.UUCP> sbcs.625
Lines: 18

Recently, an author on the net suggested that intent should be taken into
account for hackers who tap into other computer operations (other than the
ones they are authorized to use).  This author suggested using malice or
greed as indexes.
I should like to point out that what I know from criminal law intent is
always taken into account for both conviction and sentencing.  It would
work like this:
 (a) for conviction, did the hacker intend to make unauthorized use of 
     another's computer system; and
 (b) for sentencing, how much trouble did the hacker really cause or
     intend to cause.
While criminal law as applied to misprision of computers is not my
forte, I believe these are close analogies for the topic.

Of course, a court or legislature could always impose strict liability
for unauthorized use of a computer. (ie. simply did the hacker have any
unauthorized use;  a close analogy would be for statutory rape, no one 
cares if you knew the female was underage, just did you commit the act)