Corzine, John

Farr, Sam

English

Santa Clara University School of Law

I i OWl, .... K t(UN$ ;;.;y H_ in'uTAKE~ CHfU' OUP\lT1lUS .J.HM" L .Aa.IK'tl Kt:mL~~·" S'r ... IwU'"" .... LQUft~ EO'I'Y ... "tl K p..RtCtu. .IOttf.t".5~"II'ft J ... ~lIot..AlI(fOftb • • lJItgislatfut mnunstl ~~~~uuirt "oee:ftlQ.~. =~4~.~:"CK.~I.+ JJt of QIalifnnrin j::=~: BIt)N M. GREGORY 30;;?' S'tAn.CMrlTO\. ~AC4t~O .aa14 (G:uu.ws..'310$7 8()t1STA'J$.~ ,Cai ~ IIt'IOADWAV l05A~ toota ~'3) e;:"O·.:tUtO Honorable George Deukmejian Governor of California Sacramento, CA Sacramento, Cali£ornia August 31, 1984 Assembly Bill No. 2551 Dear Governor Deukmejian: Pursuant to your request we have reviewed the above-numbered bill authored by ___ A_s_s_e_mb __ l~y~M_e_mb __ e_r __ F_a_r_r __ _ and, in our opinion, the title and form are sufficient and the bill, if chaptered, will be constitutional. The digest on the printed bill as adopted correctly reflects the views of this office. JC:TR Very truly yours, Bion M. Gregory Legislative Counsel /' - (" ~~L-Corzine cipal Deputy Two copies to Honorable Sam Farro:.-______ _ pursuant to Joint Rule 34. MEMBEflS n~:t ••. 1.1 fillil • • I./.t:\\Ctl.'l,.,.IIn Ch .. tht~ VI a.d~r W,I!l.mO .. t.l'-l M.a."tW:I~~!i()" Sh'n-eClulf) Ro.No'ltC flf;'1'I1> f;.llnuH,iUhS D.,..ko.UHI TomHlllydof'l lUCytt.W" .. .Assembly OIalifl1rnia i£egtslature Sl~t~ Gllt'I!;!' Sa!.',,~r-.I'.)95aU j·.J'I)\4(!.oG424 J('1'i"lIJ.Nf'..,m~n .1!'";ot:l,Vt:(:'::'''''liuHiltll PatHclaftam,ev AS$Gr.taleCl)n!l.ullilflt 001l Rooe'$ Joon VAl>tOn.::CllV~ ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES A"'!'I!:.:lC-I:!I:c-M~c.,J.,t:. Cl1lllmltte~ S~CJela'v SAM FARFI Chairman August 29, 1984 Honorable George Deukmejian Governcr State of California State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Deukmejian: This letter is to respectfully request you to sign Assembly Bill 2551, relating to penalties for ~omputcr t~espa5sing, whioh was ~ecently soeht to enrollment. Assembly Bill 2551 would close a current loophole in the Penal Code which allows individuals to use home computers to legally browse through confjopntial computaL uata oases, so long as tli.i.:; "computer trespassing" is non-malicious and causes no damages. Assembly Bill 1551 would close this loophole in a way supportive of computer network owners by: o Establishing as a misdemeanor the intentional unauthorized Antry into any computer system with the knowledge that the entry was not authorized. " Establishing a flexibla peuctlty sohedule tha~ prosecutors can realistically apply to different levels of offense. o Including in the definition of injury any expenditure reasonably and necessarily incurred by the computer system owner to determine if the system has been damaged by the access. o Specifically authorizing civil actions by computer systc1m owners to recover compensatory damages, including attorneys' fees. . .... • • This m~.aBt1re is supportad by ritdUY groups i.ncluding: State Attorney General (Sponsor) California Distrit::t. Attorney's Asscciation California Chamber of Commerce California Correctional Peace Officers Association California Manufacturers Association Bank of America Blue Cross IBf.l TRW, Inc. Hewlett-Packard Ford Motor Company California Railroad Association Bank of Cali£ornia Syntex USA City and County of San Francisco I urge you to sign Assembly Bill 255J, SAM FARR Chairman I $ , I I I Honorable Sam Farr Member of the As semb ly :i ,ti,~ Cd[Jito~~ R~~,!!, ~lZ0 " .. , , "q;:,;' l. ~'~l t JOt tt SUBJECl • OEPARTfI£NT Finance AunOR Flirr •. _---- SILL NIJiIBER AS 255i DATE LAST AME'N'IltO"--Augus t 7, 1984 Thi s bi 11 would make any unauthori zed computer access a pUblic offense. The bill also changes the definition of computer system and prohib',ts any malicious disruption of computer operations. sLNMA!iy Of REASoNS FOR SIGNATDRE: Wi 11 help protect the confidentiality and integrity of computerized data. FISCAL SUMf')\RV--STATE LEVEL so LA Department/Agency CO or Revenue Type Code RV FC 1983-84 Fe j984-85 Fe 1985-86 ~ fund None FISCAL SUMW\RY--lOCAL LEVEL Re imbursab 1 e Non-Reimbursab 1 e ANALYSIS A. Specific Findings Under existing law, the malicious access, alteration, deletion, damage, or destruction of a computer system, network, program or data is a public offense and a felon.'!. This ll111 Wouhi dlki to tOllt category of offenses the disruption of the operation of a comput,er system, network, program, 01' data. The bill would classify specified unauthoY'ized access as a public offense and would express certain legislative findings and intent rE:.lating to that offense. The Dill would make certain changes in the definitfon of the term "computer system." B. Fiscal Analysis This bill does not impact any State department or program. Any impact on local governments is appropriately addressed by the "crimes and infractions" disclaimer- iii tht:! oi 11. -m]~~~r----------------------r~~~~~~--~~-­Sign the bill. i1:"nOLl.eD iJlLL REPORi • OErWl1t,O£N1 St~!ihen P. Teale Data Center $UH.I'C1 C01Dputers I AB 2551 . This bi}'l would establish a. range of: pen!] 1 ties for those who oOliiiilit computer orimes and would also attempt to both clarify and add components to the range of penal ties. This legislation is being sponsored by Assemblyman Farr, Chairman of: the Assembly Committoe of Economic Developnent and New Technologies. Im.paot Assessment Under e:z:isting lav, the malicious access, alteration, deletion, damage, or destruotion of a computer system, network, program, or data i.s a public offense and II felony. This bill would add to that category o~ offenses the disruption of the operation of II cOlllputer 'lystem, network, program, or data. This bill. would also classify specified unauthori~ed computer access as 8 public offense. The implelllanta"ion of these chanses would have an overall posHive effect upon both the public and. private data procesaiDg cOlJUllunitv. Arguments Pro Ii Con Teale Data Center is in full <9upport. of i;!!,:!,~ bill. .we passage of this bill will serve as a deterrent for those who might contemplate oommitting computer crimes. Recommendation Teale Data Center recommends that the Governor sign this bill. The inol'el!lsing ut1!lge of computers and computer terminals in business and industry, coupled with the proliferation of personal computers have provided thA opportunity for widespread COlllliu t &1' <:L"llUt!. Til", passage of this bill Wl.ll insure generally stiffer and more consistant penalties for those caught. Veto l~essago N/A I:'\selley HEALTH ~ WELfARr: AGENCY IDepartmen.t., hoard or Lommlss·~l~o:-:-n----: ____ ---'"'!i!'ALTH Ii WELFARE AG£~p' DATA CENTER I p'l LL SUMf.1ARY; An 2551 has been introduced to amend Section 502 of the Penal Code, relating to computers. Under existing law, the malicious aC'c",$s, I alteration, deletion of a computer system, network, program or Jata This bill adds to the category of offenses the disruption of the operation of a computer system network, program or data. It I is a public offense and a felony. classifys "unauthorized access" as a public offense~ punishable as specified, depending on whE'ther there is injm'y, and liQuId express certain legislative findings and intent relating to that offense. (Injury being any deletion, damage or destruction of a computer system or any expenditures incurred by the oh-ner/lessee to verify that a computer system was not damaged by the access.) This bill also provides certain civil remedies to the person who intentionally and without authorization accesses a computer system. This does not apply, however, to the person who accesses the system whe~ acting within the scope of his/her employment. Violations are pun~shable by a ~ine and/or imprisonment depending upon injury. FISCAL INPACT: There i~ :lC fiscal impact to the Data Center. I VOl" COUNT, Criminal La .. ; & Public Safety Assembly Floor ~~~~~!t~~o~~ JudLciary RECOMf-IENDA T ION: Ayes: 6 Ayes: 78 Ayes: 6 Ayes: 33 Noes 0 Noes 0 Noes 0 Noes This bill strengthens the current law, therefore, the Data Center recommonds the signing of the bill. '.' • • SlATE REPUBLICAN cAuefs SENATOR JOHN SEYMOUR. Chairman POSITIONS; 1 \:> 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 n ?II :.'!i ~)G :''/ 7(1 :>9 30 31 32 SOURCE: Attorney General. BILL NUMBER: AS 2551 SUPPORT: California Chumber of Commerce; AUTHOR: Comm.cn Econ. California Correctional Peace Officers Assn.; Dev.& N.T.et al California Manufacturers Assn.; Blue Cross; AMENDED COPY; 8/7/84 IBM; TRW, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard; Ford Metor MAJORITY VOTE company, PLACED ON FILE AS A RESULT OF SENATE RULE 28.8 Assembly Floor Vote: 7B-0 Po 19974 (6/13/84) PASSED ASSEMBLY ON CONS EN' This bill establishes new criminal penalties for using computer systems under certain circumstances, and also provide cerL~iD cIvil remedies, as specifi~d. FISCAL ~F.:FEC'l' Appropriation: No. Fiscal Committee: Yes. Local ~ );eb. The bill would increase General Fund costs to the extent tha~ additional persons are sentenced to state prison. The Department ?f corrections estimates that the bill would have a negligible, if any, fiscal impact. The new criminal penalties provided by the bill would result in undetermined revenues to local governments and certain state special funds from fines and penalty assessments. Mandat.ed Local P~ogram. The bill would result in undetermined local law enforcement and incarceration costs. It contaias a crimes and infractions disclaimer. COMMENTS Under t'xinting law. any malicious acceSfl of a computer system if; punishilhJa as a misdemeanor or felony. Thjs bill would make any intentional and knowingly unauthorized, but non-rnaliuious, computer access punish~bl(' as a vublic office. A first offense which did not cause injury. as defined, would be punishable as NEXT PAC£:: '.' 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 '3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • 74 b L6 n 28 29 30 31 3'2 33 :\11 35 36 37 38 39 110 III 47 113 114 45 46 47 48 • 49 ·0 .1 fl2 b3 !,II ~dj !:If> 5" • • ANAl.. YSIS CONTINUED: PAGE: 2 alLL NUMSeA: AB 25~1 an infraction by a $250 fine. A sdbsequent offense or any offense cau~ih~ inju~y woul~ Le punishable as a misdemeanor by a one year county jail term and/or a $5,000 fine. The bill would also provide that a computer owner could recover in an civil action for compensatory damages caused by an unlawful computer QccefEl;s ... 'I'he purpose of this bi.ll is to deter "computer hacking." Problem of computer hackers According to proponents, existing law prohibiting mulicious (intent to vax, injure, or do an unlaWful act) access does not adequately protect against computer hackers who may intentionally and without authori~ation access a computer system for "the fun of it." Because the act was performed without malice and without any damage or alteration to the computer system or program, these computer hackers ere not guilty of any crime. The accesses, however, are not always harmless. Proponents assert that the access may invade the confidentiality of stored records or may require the owner to expend significant sums of money to ensure that the records were not tampered with. . Reason for graduated npna'ties Proponents state that a $250 infraction fine is an appropriate per.l~y for a first offense with no injury. For pu~po8es of deterrence, however, any subsequent offense wou~d be punishable as a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor penalty for injury An offense resulting in injury would be punishable by Ii uSle year county j~il term and for a $5,000 fine or both. Definition of "injury" The bill would define injury to include "any ••• damage ••• of a comput~r system • • • or program, or any expenditure reasonably and necessarily incur~ed by the busine~s or owner to verify that a computer program ••• ~ data was not altered, deleted, damaged, or destroyed by the access." Proponents assert that computer hacking is a modern and unique crime, that tho offense deprives a computer owner of resources whenever, to make his system hwhole," he must verify that an unauthorized access has nol rl~maged the program or data, that this deprivation is an injury to the owner, and thdt, therefore, the definition of inJury should include an owner's costs of verifying a program's security after an unauthorized entry. Nf!XT PAGE ••• 4 5 5 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 • • ANAl. YSIS CONTINUED: PAGE: BilL NUMBER: hB 2551 Scope of employment exception Thi~ hill would not apply to any person who accessed his or her employer's computer system when acting within the scope of employment. This provision is intended to except the authorized office computer worker who used the computer system for personal reasons in violation of company policy. The exception, however, would !!.2! apply 1:.0 office workers who were not authorized to use the computer. Provision of attorney's fees in seeking civil remedy The bill would state the right of a computer owner to sue a convicted offender for any "compensatory" d~magcs includinq 1ea~onahLA pxpenees c~u8ed by an un~awful access. Similar Legislation S~ 2149 (Doolittle) would also enact criminal penalties to deter computer hackers. It provides for a 6 month jail term and/or a $1,000 fine misdemeanor penalty regardless of Whether any namage was done. •', 24 :; • 6 Introduoed by Committee on Economic Development and New Technologies (Assembly Members Farr (Chairman), Bader, Baker, Clute, Fr~zee, Hauser and Killea) • 27 2B Assembly Coauthors: Assembly Members Alatorre, Areias, Condit, 29 Cortese, Davis, Katz, Kelley, Konnyu, Mo~ina, ao MOOTh",,,,d, O'Con:'lall. c1llli Nor!'lan waters. 3l 32 Senate Coauthors: Senators Doolittle, McCorquodale, Petris. 33 presley, Richardson, ~obbin5, Seymour, Speraw, 34 Sti~rn, Sill Greene, and Keene. 35 36 !!£!!: 37 38 See attached Support letters. 39 40 8/1S/84:vw:jab 41 42 113 41l 115 46 117 49 e l19 n ,I 55 57 

Enrolled Bill Report [A.B. 2551] [Cal. Penal Code 502]

bepress Legal Repository

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&amp;context=historical

Enrolled Bill Report [A.B. 2551] [Cal. Penal Code 502]

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Santa Clara University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository