(a)
Defined. A person commits computer crime when he violates any of the provisions of this section.
(b) Unauthorized access to a computer system. (1) A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer system when, knowing that he is not authorized to do so, he accesses or causes to be accessed any computer system without authorization.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a computer system that: (A) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system, or a person empowered to license access thereto, had authorized him to access; (B) the person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have authorized him to access without payment of any consideration; or (C) the person reasonably could not have known that his access was unauthorized.
(c) Theft of computer services. A person is guilty of the computer crime of theft of computer services when he accesses or causes to be accessed or otherwise uses or causes to be used a computer system with the intent to obtain unauthorized computer services.
(d) Interruption of computer services. A person is guilty of the computer crime of interruption of computer services when he, without authorization, intentionally or recklessly disrupts or degrades or causes the disruption or degradation of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer system.
(e) Misuse of computer system information. A person is guilty of the computer crime of misuse of computer system information when: (1) As a result of his accessing or causing to be accessed a computer system, he intentionally makes or causes to be made an unauthorized display, use, disclosure or copy, in any form, of data residing in, communicated by or produced by a computer system; or (2) he intentionally or recklessly and without authorization (A) alters, deletes, tampers with, damages, destroys or takes data intended for use by a computer system, whether residing within or external to a computer system, or (B) intercepts or adds data to data residing within a computer system; or (3) he knowingly receives or retains data obtained in violation of subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection; or (4) he uses or discloses any data he knows or believes was obtained in violation of subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection.
(f) Destruction of computer equipment. A person is guilty of the computer crime of destruction of computer equipment when he, without authorization, intentionally or recklessly tampers with, takes, transfers, conceals, alters, damages or destroys any equipment used in a computer system or intentionally or recklessly causes any of the foregoing to occur.
(P.A. 84-206, S. 2.)
See Sec. 53-451 re computer crimes.
See Sec. 53a-301 re computer crime in furtherance of terrorist purposes.
Cited. 49 CA 582.
Notes of Decisions
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 885 A.2d 758 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 9× “The plaintiff, a company in the in-store advertising and promotional products industry, brought this action alleging that Marquis, the plaintiffs former vice president of retail marketing for the north central region of the United States, breached his duty of loyalty to the…”
Brantley v. City of New Haven, 920 A.2d 331 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 9× “) General Statutes § 53a-251 (b) (1). The statute provides further, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a computer system that: (A) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system, or a…”
Norse Sys., Inc. v. Tingley Sys., Inc., 715 A.2d 807 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “On May 16, 1988, Tingley commenced suit against Norse in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging copyright infringement, unauthorized access to and misuse of a computer system in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-251 and 52-570b, tortious…”
MacDermid Printing Solutions LLC v. Cortron Corp., 833 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2016).
“§§ 35-50 to 35-58; under the state computer-crime statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-251, 52- *180 570b; under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn.”
Marinos v. Poirot, 33 A.3d 282 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Ill The plaintiffs third claim is that the court improperly granted summary judgment on counts two, eleven and sixteen alleging computer crimes; see General Statutes § 53a-251; on the ground that the expenses she incurred *705 with regard to the computer system in the Meo law…”
Charter Oak Lending Grp., LLC v. August, 14 A.3d 449 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 3× “In its operative complaint filed October 19, 2005, the plaintiff alleged civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of CUTSA, violation of CUTPA, conversion, statutory theft and computer related offenses in violation of General Statutes § 53a-251. The plaintiff…”
Bernstein v. Mafcote, Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D. Conn. 2014).
· cites it 3× “On the current record, the Court further declines without prejudice to authorize the defendants to “initiate separate action(s) to enforce Mafcote’s rights against the person(s) who stole, accessed and/or misused its computer system information in violation of Connecticut…”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Mortensen, 222 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D. Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 52-564; breach of fiduciary duty; violations of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act; violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and unfair competition; interference with contract rights and other business relations; interference with business expectancies;…”
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 862 A.2d 837 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
“General Statutes § 52-570b (c) provides: “Independent of or in conjunction with an action under subsection (a) of this section, any person who suffers any injury to person, business or property may bring an action for damages against a person who is alleged to have violated any…”
Nardozzi v. Perez, 276 A.3d 441 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “As to the ninth count, the defendant construed the plaintiff’s allegations of computer crime in violation of General Statutes § 53a-251 as a ‘‘deriva- tive statutory claim’’ of the fraud alleged in the fourth count, which, in the defendant’s view, merited extending absolute…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.