I said the law looks at whether it was authorized access or not, I was not citing any literal lines from the law. Didn’t read the article because I know this already because of the industry I work in and I took a course a number of years ago that literally was about this.
He didn’t hack anything. He used a password that wasn’t changed.
Technically he was not authorized to use the computer system due to his termination which the law looks at and calls hacking.
I’ll give you half a point because technically you are right.
No, the law specifically called this “unauthorized access to computer material”. It’s right there in the article.
I said the law looks at whether it was authorized access or not, I was not citing any literal lines from the law. Didn’t read the article because I know this already because of the industry I work in and I took a course a number of years ago that literally was about this.
It’s only hacking if it’s in a CVE.
Anything else is just sparkling unauthorized access.
He also didn’t delete servers