Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Password hacker gets probation (& other electronic crimes)
Message-ID: <7733@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-May-84 13:20:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.7733
Posted: Sun May 13 13:20:56 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 14-May-84 00:20:29 EDT
References: <7655@watmath.UUCP>, <625@sbcs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21


In a recent submision I expressed the view that intent should be a
major factor in determining the sentence in cases of computer "break
in".  At least two people have replied asking how intent is to be
determined.  Actually, as has already been pointed, out intent is
one of the factors taken into account by the courts in sentencing.
The courts have always had the difficult task of determining 
"facts" such as these.  In many cases there will be clear indications
of what the intent was.  If no such clear indications exist, well
that's what we pay judges for.
    Breaking into a computer can be a grave offence.  As such the
maximum penalties should be severe, and no instance of the crime
should be treated trivially.  However, in most cases the maximum
penalties would not be used.  The ease with which the crime was
commited should have little bearing on the case.

                                                William Hughes

Honest Judge, all I did was apply a little preasure with this knife
against his neck.  It was really easy!