Re: Comments on new Mass. comp.crime law?

Subject: Re: Comments on new Mass. comp.crime law?
From: jktaber@netcom.com (John K. Taber)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 13:10:07 GMT
Apparently-To: merlyn@teleport.com
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk, misc.legal.computing
Organization: None
References: <30i32c$km3@news.bu.edu> <jktaberCtB1Bu.F3w@netcom.com> <MERLYN.94Jul22162014@linda.teleport.com>
Xref: news.teleport.com comp.org.eff.talk:34980 misc.legal.computing:8746

Randal L. Schwartz (merlyn@stonehenge.com) wrote:


: John> What does "unauthorized access" mean?  If this is the equivalent of a no
: John> trespassing law, I have no problems with it.  But if "unauthorized access"
: John> mean an employee who uses his employer's computer to post to a newsgroup 
: John> without specific permission has committed an offense under this law, then
: John> I object to it.  The penalties seem to me to be in line with trespass 
: John> laws.  This is a great improvement over an early computer crime bill that
: John> carried penalties of 15 years for minimal offenses.

: The Oregon (and Idaho[!]) law makes "unauthorized alteration" of
: practically anything computer-related a "Class C" Felony (up to 5
: years and $250,000, the same thing Tonya Harding copped to).

: However, it doesn't define either "unauthorized" or "alter"!  In fact,
: it's the only place in the 613 references to "authorize" in the Oregon
: State code that does *not* define an authorizing body and form of
: authorization required.  (CD-ROMS are wonderful!) And "alter" is
: completely indeterminate.  (In fact, a prosecutor and judge recently
: agreed that "alter" includes changing the background screen color!!!)

It was exactly for such reasons that I opposed these blunderbuss laws in
the late 70s and early 80s.  Senator Ribicoff originally proposed a
Federal computer crime bill that was a horror of sloppy draftsmanship.
Because of poor definitions, using an electronic calculator to cheat on
one's income tax would have been a "computer" crime.  Because unauthorized
access was poorly defined (it included such terms as "approach a computer")
yes, changing a background screen color without authorization would have
been a federal felony with 15 years in the slammer for penalty.  And "alter"
was just as poorly defined.  Basically, it meant that if somebody influential
enough didn't like you, you went to prison where you could continue writing
programs for the Bureau of Prisons.  

Ribicoff's bill didn't make progress in Congress, so its supporters promoted
Little Ribicoff Bills in the state legislatures.  These bills were passed
with an appalling lack of legislative scrutiny.  Only in California was
there opposition, and that was from me and John James.

But I was one man, and I couldn't be everywhere.  

I don't know the Oregon law on computer crime, but if it is like those of
the other states, it was passed at the behest of computer security outfits
and a few prosecutors who hoped for glorious new careers.
It is unnecessary.  It is so poorly drafted that the citizen cannot know
exactly what is forbidden.  And it was passed with only cursory legislative
examination.

These laws invite prosecutorial abuse.  They are very bad laws.
-- 
John K. Taber            finger for pgp key                jktaber@netcom.c
===========================================================================
How do we progress this disaster? -- Malaphors