I thought the CFAA, like the UK equivalent Computer Misuse Act 1990, governed unauthorised access to computer systems and data. Seems appropriate to me.
Paper files would probably be locked up - the equivalent prosecution would then be something like trespass, breaking and entering, or what have you.
If you have access to data for operational purposes then access outside of operational needs is just unauthorised access which on computer systems is an offence in itself because physical access is already historically covered under various laws.
> Paper files would probably be locked up - the equivalent prosecution would then be something like trespass, breaking and entering, or what have you.
You're making the right analogy but then the analogous thing has the same problem. The bad thing isn't trespassing, the bad thing is misusing police records. Trespassing or B&E doesn't fit at all, because he is legitimately allowed to be there (which is what that crime prohibits) and even to have that information, but isn't allowed to use the information for that purpose, which is something else entirely.
The penalty for trespassing is also the wrong one because misusing police records is worse than trespassing. So if trespassing is the worst you can charge then you end up either having to make the penalty for trespassing far too severe for most other instances of trespassing, or the effective penalty for misusing police records would be too lenient.
Which is why we need laws against specific things with penalties appropriate to the crime, rather than one overly broad law with severe penalties that effectively says don't do anything you aren't supposed to do.
> You're making the right analogy but then the analogous thing has the same problem. The bad thing isn't trespassing, the bad thing is misusing police records. Trespassing or B&E doesn't fit at all, because he is legitimately allowed to be there (which is what that crime prohibits) and even to have that information, but isn't allowed to use the information for that purpose, which is something else entirely.
Exactly - though in most cases being fired from your position would be appropriate and the end of the story (unless there were actual people whom were harmed or material damages involved). In particular I think the comments/judgements regarding this issue are subconsciously harsher due to the subject matter.
Paper files would probably be locked up - the equivalent prosecution would then be something like trespass, breaking and entering, or what have you.
If you have access to data for operational purposes then access outside of operational needs is just unauthorised access which on computer systems is an offence in itself because physical access is already historically covered under various laws.