Computer Crime Comparison Table
State Statues Compared to each other
| State Statute | Attributes Compared to California | Attributes Contrasted to California | Report on Effectiveness of Illinois compared to California |
| Illinois | Illinois computer crime laws mostly deal with hacking and tampering, while California laws cover almost all the crimes that are involved in computer crime. | The penalty for computer crimes in Illinois may be treated as felony or class misdemeanours, while in California, any computer crime can is considered very severe. There are significant fines in the state of California court. | In Illinois, Tanya lied to be a representative of a credit card company. While she was not legally holding any shares in the credit company. When people sent their information, she sent the information to a fraudster company in Russia. In California, she may be charged with phishing acts. |
| State Statute
Illinois |
Attributes Compared to NY
Hacking has been a general term in computer crime, and it is generally punished as a computer crime. The penalty can be jail terms or fines. In New York, the punishment is harsh compared to Illinois since one is jailed for around 25 to 30 years. |
Attributes Contrasted to NY
Illinois laws differentiate between misdemeanour crimes as well as computer crimes while. New York laws do not distinguish two between computer crimes and misdemeanours. |
Report on Effectiveness of Illinois compared to NY
Seleznez was charged with 27-year imprisonment due to the hacking acts where she hacked her former boss’s website and copied a number of files, and later deleted them. She has been serving the longest sentence in New York of 27 years imprisonment. |
| California | Compared to NY In New York, the computer tampering crime has been divided into four degrees of a felony, While in California, the offence that is computer tampering is a penalty is dealt with uniformly. |
Contrasted to NY
In California, the computer crime penalty may range from $1000 dollars to $10 000. While in New York, the charges are from $50 to 100 dollars |
In 2013 Vargas was arraigned in court for a hacking crime and was released on a 50 000 dollars bond by hacking his ex-girlfriend’s account to spy on who they were chatting with and the person she was dating. Hacking her conversation made him pay a huge fine |
Statute Comparison
Statute Comparison to CFAA
| State Statute | Attributes Compared to CFAA | Attributes Contrasted to CFAA | Report on Effectiveness in Its State |
| California | Phishing is one of the internet crimes on the internet. California state and the CFAA prosecute an individual who practices phishing. | The penalties of phishing in California will depend on the particular behavior of the case, while in CFAA, the situation is different since they cannot prosecute a case they lack clarity on it and therefore, for CFAA to prosecute a phishing crime, there must be clarifications on the case. | Pete is a known hacker. He created a website lying to the individual about how he would give them credit, and he would ask for details for the credit card and sell it to a crime group in Russia. Pete may be prosecuted in California for fraud, and the credit card holder may sue him for the phishing act. |
| New York | If an individual conspires to take the offence for financial gain, to commit a crime, or access data worth over $5,000, the misdemeanour results in a felony punishable by up to 10 years if the person was sometime back convicted of a computer crime.
According to CFAA, when an individual intentionally accesses others’ website and cause damage may lead to 20 years in jail. |
Hacking can lead to loss of human life which can lead to life imprisonment. CFAA has tightened cybercrime, especially hacking and malicious acts such as creating a virus to destroy other software or information (state Computer Crime Laws – FindLaw, 2018). | Hammond has helped in stealing sixty thousand credit card numbers as well as making thousand dollars through the act. He destroyed a company’s information on its clients. New York may prosecute Hammond for tampering with others’ information. According to CFAA laws, this act is against their rules, and it manipulates the country’s finances. |
| Illinois | Illinois state is battling computer crimes by making unauthorized access or trespassing and tampering a criminal offence as well as computer use for fraud. Through the enhancement of computer crime sentencing, CFAA has been able to enhance its penalties for cybercrimes. | CFAA has a complicated process during the prosecution of the defendant, while Illinois is a simple process. CFAA has a strict approach to crimes as well as severe consequences. | In the state of Illinois, Barbra was charged with tampering under state criminal law. What she entered was detained due to her contention of accessing the victim’s email without his consent. |
| Name of Case | Statute Reference | Judicial Opinion | Statute Success |
| Conviction of journalist Matthew Keys of 2015 | CFAA section 1030 (a) (5): | Mathews Keys was found guilty as a result of accessing information without the authorization of the boss. | The statute in this regard was effective. |
| Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Criminal Charges Against Senior Corporate Officers of Backpage.com for Profiting from Prostitution and Arrest of Carl Ferrer, CEO | Cal. Penal Code section 502 | Improper use of the internet should be subjected to legal establishments | Acted as a lesson and a reference for those misusing the internet |
| People v Puesan 2013 NY Slip Op 06530 Decided on October 8, 2013, Appellate Division, First Department Saxe | N.Y. Penal Law section 156.00 to 156.50 | Sharing of electronic information is not allowed whatsoever the case without the permission of the owner. | Served is referenced as a case of precedence, thus showing success. |
References
State Computer Crime Laws – FindLaw. (2018). Findlaw. Retrieved 13 January 2018, from http://statelaws.findlaw.com/criminal-laws/computer-crimes.html
