Orin Kerr writes:
The federal computer crime statutes punish unauthorized access to a computer. As regular readers know, courts are hopelessly divided on what this language means, and in particular what makes an access to a computer authorized versus unauthorized. In Cheng v. Romo, 2012 WL 6021369 (D. Mass. Nov. 28 2012), Judge Casper authored an opinion on an interesting wrinkle that I’ve pondered but that hasn’t come up before in published decisions: How do computer crime statutes apply when one party gives his password to another party for some limited uses, but the latter party uses the password for broader uses? Is the accessing with the password but beyond the implicit or explicit limit “unauthorized” for purposes of the computer crime laws?
Read more on The Volokh Conspiracy
Since every organization has a different outlook when it comes to un/authorized data, it has to boil down to several things. The user agreement/Non Disclosure or some other paperwork or acknowldeged statemnt with an autograph should have been in place.
You can be authorized to do something, but that “authorized” portion has to be better defined. I think a simple statement which adds ” You are no longer authorized to perform duties if you are considering or have a motive /motivation that will negatively affect the safety or well-being of personnel, equipment, reputation, profit or outcome of the business.
Shared passwords are a bad idea. For audit trails and forensics, its a nightmare to figure out who may have used a commonly shared password. Its alot better to jump through the policy hoop and create everyone a unique account and password. It thwarts coverup.
Using a two-part password where person A has the first part of an elevated password and person B has the second part is doomed for failure. Laziness can take over and one person will give their half of the password for the easy way out. Trust in the system and policies are then flushed.
Some one thats brought to trial on a computer charge needs to be approached as if it was a life and death matter. That degree of articulation is whats needed to ensure the evidence is presented right. For the people who don’t quite understand a typical routine, phrase or procedure, there should be an unbiased third party consultant who can give an answer to a few select questions about the technology – no what if’s – simple facts and proven theories. they are there to educate the courts on items that are unclear to the best of their ability.
How do you identify a negatively motivated person? Its typically “not my job” to point a finger at everyone thats having a bad day at the office. Those people who plan to do harm to a business are over the edge already – they are typically not going to listen to logic, or be able to disqualify themselves from becoming an authorized person to an unathorized person.
I’ll mention profiling people, but thats not a companies job as well. The IT department can use proxy servers and content filtering devices while a person is at work, but they have NO idea what may go on while a person is at home. Invasion of privacy is semi-sacred. For some reason if a person WAS to do things at work that were unethical and qustionable, the only way it could be determined if it was, is to have a content filtering device that could rank the visits of sites. Thats the non-personal side of the ring.
The only saving grace is to trumpet out loud and clear that the company has an representative that has an open door policy and is there simply to listen to gripes. These gripes can be “confidential” up to a point. If the law has already been broken, it has to be reported. These ventings can save careers and stop those “oh man that was a stupid idea” – saving companies, and individual careers. The ventings can identify issues that are not seen by management and other coworkers, and policies can be put in place to correct or modify most issues.
Dunno what else to add other than, you have to link authorized/unauthorized to motive. Good Luck.