Date   : Thu, 24 May 1984 20:39:32 PDT
From   : Phil Lapsley <phil%ucbnewton.CC@Ucb-Vax.ARPA>
Subject: [BBS Flame] A Legal View

Permit me just one flame on this, then I shut up...

While I can't say what specific law was broken, not being very familiar
with the case at hand, I could offer some speculation.  In all probability,
Tom was charged under section 502 of the California Penal Code, which deals
with "Crimes Using Computers."  Apparently there has been some addition to
this section as of January of this year, and I'm not sure as to its
contents, but it probably (?) doesn't change things too drastically.

Section 502. uses the following definitions:

"Access" means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, or retrieve
data from a computer system or computer network.

"Services" includes, but is not limited to, the use of the computer system,
computer network, computer programs, or data prepared for computer use, or
data contained within a computer system, or data contained within a
computer network.

"Property" includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, data,
computer programs, documents associated with computer systems and computer
programs, whether tangible or intangible [?], including both human and
computer system readable data, and data while in transit.

Armed with the above definitions, section 502(b):

"Any person who intentionally accesses or causes to be accessed any
computer system or computer network for the purpose of (1) devising or
executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or extort or (2) obtaining
money, property, or services with false or fraudulent intent,
representations, or promises shall be guilty of a public offense."

502(d):

"Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision (b) or (c) is guilty
of a felony and is punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars
or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years,
or by both such fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

And why not 502(e):

"This section shall not be construed to preclude the applicability of any
other provision of the criminal law of this state which applies or may
apply to any transaction."

This brings us to section 502.7 of the California Penal Code, which reads
as if it was written by old Ma Bell.  Specifically, 502.7(c):

"Any person who publishes the number or code of an existing, canceled,
revoked, expired, or nonexistent credit card ... with the intent that it be
used or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will be used to avoid
the payment of any lawful telephone or telegraph toll charge is guilty of a
misdemeanor."

And we would not want to be without 502.7(g):

"An instrument, apparatus, device, plans, instruction, or written
publication described in subdivision (b) or (c) of this section may be
seized under warrant or incident to a lawful arrest, and upon the
conviction of a person for a violation of subdivisions (a), (b), or (c) of
this section, such instrument, apparatus, device, plans, instructions, or
written publication may be destroyed as contraband by the sheriff of the
county in which such a person was convicted or turned over to the person
providing telephone or telegraph service in the territory in which the same
was seized.  [i.e., Pacific Telephone]"

I suppose I could see the above being used as a legal defense of the
BBS bust along lines something like: "Well, the bulletin board provided
a credit card number, and somebody used it.  Making use of a credit
card number for fraudulent purposes when the number is provided by a
computer is a felony under section 502(b) of the California Penal
Code.  The sysop of the BBS provided this service and therefore acted
as an accomplice, and is therefore equally guilty under the eyes of the
law.  Further, the message containing the credit card number is liable
to be seized under warrant by section 502.7(g) of the CPC, and turned
over to Pacific Telephone."

I will refrain from making any statements for or against the above
laws, but the fact remains that they are on the books in California,
and they should either be changed, or abided by, depending upon your
view.

                                       Phil Lapsley
                                    (phil@Berkeley.ARPA)