14.06.2014 Views

THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A COMPUTER - Léger Robic Richard

THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A COMPUTER - Léger Robic Richard

THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A COMPUTER - Léger Robic Richard

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>THE</strong> <strong>UNAUTHORIZED</strong> <strong>USE</strong> <strong>OF</strong> A <strong>COMPUTER</strong> : A CRIMINAL <strong>OF</strong>FENCE<br />

By<br />

Panagiota Koutsogiannis*<br />

LEGER ROBIC RICHARD, Lawyers<br />

ROBIC, Patent & Trademark Agents<br />

Centre CDP Capital<br />

1001 Square-Victoria - Bloc E – 8 th Floor<br />

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Z 2B7<br />

Tel.: (514) 987 6242 - Fax: (514) 845 7874<br />

www.robic.ca - info@robic.com<br />

The Canadian Criminal Code creates an indictable offence in cases where the<br />

unauthorized use of a computer has been established (s. 342.1). In fact, four<br />

separate offences emerge from this same section and can be identified as<br />

follows: (1) the obtaining offence, (2) the interception offence, (3) the user<br />

offence, and finally (4) the enabling offence. In order to trigger the application<br />

of this section, the unauthorized acts must have been committed fraudulently<br />

and without colour of right. It is important to note that these two elements are<br />

cumulative and therefore must both be present in order for a court to find the<br />

accused guilty of any of the four offences mentioned above.<br />

In a recent decision, R. c. Paré JE-97-1179, the Court of Quebec was compelled<br />

to analyze the parameters of the obtaining offence and determine whether a<br />

police officer had acted fraudulently in obtaining computer services without<br />

colour of right. The accused admitted to his absence of right in obtaining the<br />

services however he denied acting fraudulently. The Court was of the opinion<br />

that an act is not qualified as fraudulent simply because it is not authorized. The<br />

Defendant s conduct must also have been dishonest and morally wrong. The<br />

Defendant tried to minimize the gravity of his actions by conceding that his<br />

superiors knew and tolerated the situation. However the Court found his conduct<br />

to be equivalent to wilful blindness and disregard and his attempt to justify his<br />

use did not remove his fraudulent intentions.<br />

The first of the four offences mentioned above is the obtaining offence and<br />

arises when any person fraudulently obtains a computer service either directly or<br />

indirectly. For the purposes of this section, a computer service includes the<br />

processing of data as well as the storage or retrieval of data. Obtaining a<br />

computer service is far from being a criminal offence, however coupled with the<br />

two elements of fraud and absence of right, the Court would have sufficient<br />

<br />

© LEGER ROBIC RICHARD / ROBIC, 1998-1999.<br />

* Lawyer with the lawfirm LEGER ROBIC RICHARD, g.p. and with the patent and trademark<br />

agency firm ROBIC, g.p. Publication 222.004.


evidence to convict if it was convinced of the evidence against the Defendant<br />

beyond a reasonable doubt. Today with the evergrowing presence of the<br />

Internet worldwide, a more accurate and complete definition of a computer<br />

service should perhaps include the external transmission or reception of<br />

information as a means of telecommunication.<br />

The second offence created by s. 342.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code is the<br />

interception offence and will be set off by any person who intercepts or causes<br />

to be intercepted, directlly or indirectly, any function of a computer system. The<br />

list of devices capable of causing the interception is not exhaustive and may<br />

include any contrivance which may be used to intercept any function of a<br />

computer system. However, a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of<br />

the user to not better than normal hearing is specifically excluded from the<br />

various possible methods of interception provided for by this section of the<br />

Criminal Code. A computer system as used in this section can be defined as<br />

a device or a group of interconnected or related devices that (1) contain<br />

computer programs or other data or (2) perform logic and control, and may<br />

perform any other function pursuant to computer programs.<br />

The user offence is committed when someone uses or causes to be used, directly<br />

or indirectly, a computer system with the intent to commit an offence such as<br />

the obtaining or interception offences, as described above, or mischief in<br />

relation to data or a computer system (s. 430). The burden of proof lies with the<br />

plaintiff to show that all the elements required for the commission of the<br />

prohibited act were present. The Plaintiff must first prove the physical act of using<br />

a computer system, whether directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the Plaintiff must<br />

also show that the act was committed fraudulently and without colour of right.<br />

Evidence of these elements is still insufficient to impose criminal liability on the<br />

accused. For this offence, an additional mental element must also be proven;<br />

the Plaintiff must prove the Defendant s intent to commit either the obtaining or<br />

interception offence or mischief in relation to data or a computer system.<br />

The offence of mischief in relation to data, although not one of the four offences<br />

dealt with in the present article, is directlly linked to the provision on the<br />

unauthorized use of a computer. For the purposes of both sections 342.1 and 430<br />

(1.1) of the Criminal Code, data is defined as a representation of information or<br />

of concepts that are being or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a<br />

computer system. When a person wilfully destroys, alters, renders ineffective or<br />

interferes with the lawful use of data, he is committing the offence of mischief,<br />

however, when a computer is used fraudulently with the intent of committing<br />

these mischievous acts, the user offence is also said to have been committed.<br />

The fourth and final offence created by s. 342.1 is the enabling offence. This<br />

offence will have been committed if a person used, possessed, trafficked in or


permitted another person to have access to a computer password that would<br />

enable a person to commit one of the three offences described above. A<br />

computer password allows a computer system or service to be obtained or used<br />

by keying in certain data.<br />

Although the Courts have had to deal very little with the offences foreseen in<br />

section 342.1, it might be warranted to assume that with the rapidity at which the<br />

Internet has been expanding in every part of the world, in businesses as well as<br />

in homes, it will create more possibilities for wrongdoing with respect to<br />

computers and will perhaps broaden the scope of situations to which this section<br />

can be applied.


ROBIC, un groupe d'avocats et d'agents de brevets et de marques de commerce voué depuis<br />

1892 à la protection et à la valorisation de la propriété intellectuelle dans tous les domaines:<br />

brevets, dessins industriels et modèles utilitaires; marques de commerce, marques de certification<br />

et appellations d'origine; droits d'auteur, propriété littéraire et artistique, droits voisins et de l'artiste<br />

interprète; informatique, logiciels et circuits intégrés; biotechnologies, pharmaceutiques et<br />

obtentions végétales; secrets de commerce, know-how et concurrence; licences, franchises et<br />

transferts de technologies; commerce électronique, distribution et droit des affaires; marquage,<br />

publicité et étiquetage; poursuite, litige et arbitrage; vérification diligente et audit; et ce, tant au<br />

Canada qu'ailleurs dans le monde. La maîtrise des intangibles.<br />

ROBIC, a group of lawyers and of patent and trademark agents dedicated since 1892 to the<br />

protection and the valorization of all fields of intellectual property: patents, industrial designs and<br />

utility patents; trademarks, certification marks and indications of origin; copyright and<br />

entertainment law, artists and performers, neighbouring rights; computer, software and<br />

integrated circuits; biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals and plant breeders; trade secrets, knowhow,<br />

competition and anti-trust; licensing, franchising and technology transfers; e-commerce,<br />

distribution and business law; marketing, publicity and labelling; prosecution litigation and<br />

arbitration; due diligence; in Canada and throughout the world. Ideas live here.<br />

COPYRIGHTER<br />

IDEAS LIVE HERE<br />

IL A TOUT DE MÊME FALLU L'INVENTER!<br />

LA MAÎTRISE DES INTANGIBLES<br />

LEGER ROBIC RICHARD<br />

NOS FENÊTRES GRANDES OUVERTES SUR LE MONDE DES AFFAIRES<br />

PATENTER<br />

R<br />

ROBIC<br />

ROBIC + DROIT +AFFAIRES +SCIENCES +ARTS<br />

ROBIC ++++<br />

ROBIC +LAW +BUSINESS +SCIENCE +ART<br />

<strong>THE</strong> TRADEMARKER GROUP<br />

TRADEMARKER<br />

VOS IDÉES À LA PORTÉE DU MONDE , DES AFFAIRES À LA GRANDEUR DE LA PLANÈTE<br />

YOUR BUSINESS IS <strong>THE</strong> WORLD <strong>OF</strong> IDEAS; OUR BUSINESS BRINGS YOUR IDEAS TO <strong>THE</strong> WORLD

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!