The following is an argument supporting and the counterarguments against the charge that a company employee violated part c of Criminal Code Section 18-5-1 Computer Crime. The employee accidental accessed on his work computer a file that contained a secret formula of the company’s most successful product.

Then the employee took the secret formula and posted It on the Internet. When the employee accessed his computer at work he violated a portion of part c Criminal Code Section 18-5-1 Computer Crime: “Accesses a computer, computer network, or computer yester”.Based on statutory analysis of Criminal Code Section 18-16-401 theft, the employee committed theft by obtaining and exercising control over the company’s secret product formula by posting It on the Internet. An average employee would know that the formula Is privileged Information and should not be divulged to the public. The employee “knowingly chose to post the secret product formula on the internet.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

He did not choose to post other company information he had accesses to because he knew the significant value of the company’s formula.On the other hand, he employee should not be charged for violating part c of Criminal Code Section 18-5-1 Computer Crime. The employee was authorized to use his computer at work; however, he was not authorized to access certain files. Since the employee was able to access the file containing the company’s secret product formula, it was an authorized access. If it was an unauthorized access then the employee would not have been capable of accessing the file. Furthermore, the employee’s job could entail him posting information about the company’s products on the internet.

The employee could have posted the formula on the internet in efforts of completing his lob duties. Also, the facts of the case did not state that the file containing the secret product formula was clearly labeled “Secret Product Formula”. Therefore, the employee did “not knowingly’ know the file he accessed contained valuable company information. In conclusion there is an argument supporting the reason why the employee was charged with violating part c of Criminal Code Section 18-5-1 Computer Crime. One the other hand, there are also counterarguments against the employee charge.