David Keegel wrote:

>Let me quote a bit from 164.377 Computer crime.
>``
> (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.
>''
>
>Could you use this wording to run a legal argument that a person didn't
>*know* that they were without authorization? If the statue could be
>interpreted that way, it would only apply to people who knew at the
>time that they were doing something unauthorized.

That you could, if it were not for ORS 161.115(1), which provides in part:

(1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but
does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable
mental state applies to each material element of the offense that
necessarily requires a culpable mental state.

In Randal's case, on account of that provision the judge ruled, and
instructed the jury, that the state was bound to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Randal knew that what he did was unauthorized.

And, of course, Randal had to admit that no one had told him it was allright
to do what he did, because no one had.

Anticipating that, we made the point (quite well I thought) that no one ever
authorized any sysadmin to do anything. For instance, when Randal went to
work at his last post at Intel, his only direction from his immediate
superior was to get a new computer online and then to "have fun." We had
that in writing.

Intel routinely paid Randal's bills for years, and for the most part what he
billed them for was "putting out fires." We had that in writing, too.

These points were lost on the jury, and, IMNSHO, the most telling reason for
that was the cops' rendition of Randal's "statement."

Randal wrote:

>Since when does something that results in not even so much as a
>disciplinary action at the time it occurs, suddenly become a felony
>crime act two years later?

That, my friends, is a difficult question to answer.

LarryO