BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    AB 32         Hearing Date:    July 7, 2015     
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Waldron                                              |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |April 7, 2015                                        |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |No               |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|JM                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                             Subject:  Computer Crimes 



          HISTORY

          Source:   Author

          Prior Legislation:SB 1255 (Cannella) - Ch. 863, Stats. 2014

          AB 1649 (Waldron) - Ch. 379, Statutes of 2014
          SB 255 (Canella) - Ch. 466, Statutes of 2013
          Support:  Association of Deputy District Attorneys; Association  
                    for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California College  
                    and University Police Chiefs; California Communities  
                    United Institute; California District Attorneys  
                    Association; California Police Chiefs Association; Los  
                    Angeles Police Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs  
                    Association 

          Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice 

          Assembly Floor Vote:                 78 - 0


          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to: 1) raise the maximum misdemeanor  
          fines for computer access, use and damage crimes from $5,000 to  








          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageB  
          of?
          
          $10,000; and 2) provide that the statute of limitations for any  
          computer access, use or damage crime runs from the date of  
          discovery if it is alleged that the defendant acquired, copied  
          or distributed an image of sexual or intimate nature.

          Existing law:

          Defines numerous computer or electronic data offenses and  
          imposes a wide range of penalties based on the seriousness of  
          the offense or extent of harm caused by the defendant, including  
          by a fine not exceeding $10,000, by felony imprisonment pursuant  
          to Penal Code Section 1170, subdivision (h) for a term of term  
          of 16 months, two years or three years, or both, or by a fine  
          not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not  
          exceeding one year.  These penalties apply where any person  
          knowingly:

                 Accesses and without permission alters, damages,  
               deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer,  
               computer system, or computer network in order to devise or  
               execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or  
               extort, or wrongfully control or obtain money, property or  
               data.

                 Accesses and without permission takes, copies or makes  
               use of any data from a computer, computer system, or  
               computer network, or takes or copies any supporting  
               documentation, whether existing or residing internal or  
               external to a computer, computer system, or computer  
               network.
                 Accesses and without permission adds, alters, damages,  
               deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or  
               computer programs which reside or exist internal or  
               external to a computer, computer system, or computer  
               network
                 Without permission, disrupts or causes the disruption of  
               computer services or denies or causes the denial of  
               computer services, or denies or causes the denial of  
               computer services to an authorized user of a computer,  
               computer system, or computer network.
                 Disrupts or improperly accesses a government or public  
               safety computer system.  (Pen. Code  502, subds. (c) 1),  
               (2), (4), (5), (10), (11), or (12); and (d)(1).)










          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageC  
          of?
          
          Provides that any person who knowingly and without permission  
          uses or causes to be used computer services shall be punished as  
          follows:

                 For the first violation that does not result in injury,  
               and where the value of the computer services used does not  
               exceed $950, by a fine not exceeding $5,000, by  
               imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by  
               both that fine and imprisonment; and
                 For any violation that results in a victim expenditure  
               in an amount more than $5,000 or in an injury, if the value  
               of the computer services used exceeds $950, or for any  
               second or subsequent violation, by a fine not exceeding  
               $10,000, by imprisonment pursuant to realignment for 16  
               months, or two or three years, or by both that fine and  
               imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding $5,000, by  
               imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by  
               both that fine and imprisonment.  (Pen. Code  502, subds.  
               (c)(3); and (d)(2).)

          Punishes any person who knowingly and without permission  
          provides or assists in providing a means of accessing, accesses,  
          or causes to be accessed a computer, computer system, or  
          computer network as follows:

                 A first violation that does not result in injury is an  
               infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.
                 Any violation that results in a victim expenditure in an  
               amount not more than $5,000, or for a second or subsequent  
               violation, is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not  
               exceeding $5,000, by imprisonment in a county jail not  
               exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment;  
               and
                 Any violation that results in a victim expenditure above  
               $5,000 is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand  
               dollars $10,000, by felony imprisonment pursuant to Penal  
               Code Section 1170, subdivision (h), for 16 months, two or  
               three years, or both, or by a fine not exceeding $5,000, by  
               imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by  
               both that fine and imprisonment.  (Pen. Code  502, subds.  
               (c) and (d)(3).)

          Punishes any person who knowingly introduces any computer  
          contaminant into any computer, or computer system, or computer  









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageD  
          of?
          
          network as follows:

                 A first violation that does not result in injury is a  
               misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000, by  
               imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by  
               both that fine and imprisonment; and
                 A violation that results in injury, or a subsequent  
               violation, is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000,  
               by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or  
               by imprisonment pursuant Penal Code Section 1170,  
               subdivision (h), or both that fine and imprisonment.  (Pen.  
               Code  502 subds. (c)(14) and (d)(4).)

          Punishes any person who knowingly and without permission uses  
          the Internet domain name of another individual, corporation, or  
          entity in connection with the sending of one or more electronic  
          mail messages, and thereby damages or causes damage to a  
          computer, computer system, or computer network as follows:

                 For a first violation that does not result in injury, an  
               infraction punishable by a fine not more than $1,000; and
                 For any violation that results in injury, or for a  
               second or subsequent violation, by a fine not exceeding  
               five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a  
               county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine  
               and imprisonment.  (Pen. Code  502, subds. (c)(9) and  
               (d)(5).)

          Requires that prosecution for a felony - an offense punishable  
          by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail pursuant to   
          Penal Code Section 1170, subdivision (h) - be commenced within  
          three years after commission of the offense, except as  
          specified. (Penal Code,  801.) 

          Requires that prosecution for an offense punishable by  
          imprisonment in the state prison or county jail pursuant to  
          realignment be commenced within three years after commission of  
          the offense, except as specified. (Penal Code,  801.) 

          States that, unless specified, prosecution for an offense not  
          punishable by death or imprisonment in state prison shall be  
          commenced within one year after commission of the offense.   
          (Penal Code  802.)










          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageE  
          of?
          
          Provides that the statute of limitations for identity theft  
          (Pen. Code  530.5) or procuring or offering false instruments  
          to be filed in a public officer (Pen. Code  115) does not  
          commence to run until the discovery of the offense.  (Pen. Code  
           803.5.)
           
           Provides that unless provided, as specified, a limitation of  
          time is not tolled or extended for any reason.  (Penal Code   
          803, subd. (a).)

          Provides that if more than statute of limitations period applies  
          to a crime, the time for commencing an action shall be governed  
          by the period that expires later in time.  (Penal Code  803.6,  
          subd. (a).)

          This bill:  

          Increases the maximum fines from $5,000 to $10,000 in the   
          misdemeanor crimes  described above in "Existing law" involving  
          computer and computer system access, use, disruption, damage or  
          alteration, unless the current misdemeanor fine is $10,000.

          Provides where it is alleged that in the commission of a  
          computer access, use, damage or alteration crime (Pen. Code   
          502), the defendant acquired, copied, or distributed at least  
          one digital image that displays a person's intimate body part,  
          the statute of limitations does not begin 

          to run until the discovery of the crime involving access, use,  
          disruption, damage or alteration to or of a computer or computer  
          system.

          Provides the following definitions for the purpose of this  
          special statute tolling the statute of limitations until the  
          crime is discovered  

                 "Intimate body part" means any portion of the genitals,  
               the anus, and in the case of a female also includes any  
               portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, that is  
               either uncovered or clearly visible through clothing; and
                 "Digital images of a person" do not include  
               representational images, artwork, or cartoon drawings.

                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageF  
          of?
          

          For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  
          overcrowding.   

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          In February of this year the administration reported that as "of  
          February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed  
          capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  This current population is now below the  
          court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(  
          Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state now must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

              Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed  
               to reducing the prison population;
              Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety  









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageG  
          of?
          
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy;


              Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
              Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
               legislative drafting error; and
              Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy.

                                      COMMENTS
          
          1.Need for This Bill

          According to the author:

               Recent media has highlighted the increasing number of  
               computer crimes that involve stealing intimate photos  
               and also publishing them on the internet which  
               emphasizes the public's vulnerability to this kind of  
               exploitation.  Conventional computer hacking penalties  
               do not sufficiently capture the emotional trauma that  
               crimes including acquiring, copying, or distributing  
               unauthorized intimate images can cause. AB 32 will  
               make such crimes punishable by a fine of up to $10,000  
               per image. The bill will establish that a person who  
               commits such offense will not be able to evade  
               prosecution by delaying release of the stolen images.  
               AB 32 will also allow for a criminal prosecution  
               within one year of when the crime was discovered. It  
               is important to keep up with the new emerging computer  
               crimes to make sure that the violators do not go  
               unpunished and to prevent future crimes in such  
               circumstances.

          2.Penalty Assessments Effectively Quadruple any Criminal Fine

          With very limited exceptions, all criminal fines are subject to  
          "penalty assessments" that effectively quadruple the amount the  
          defendant must actually pay. Simply put, if a criminal statute  
          provides that the fine for the offense is $100, the defendant  









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageH  
          of?
          
          will pay more than $400.  The court cannot relieve a defendant  
          of the obligation to pay penalty assessments.  Further, a  
          defendant in every criminal case must pay a restitution fine  
          that is deposited into the Restitution Fund that is used to  
          reimburse victims of violent crime for specified expenses.  The  
          restitution fine for a misdemeanor is from $150 to $1,000.  The  
          fine for a felony is $300 to $10,000.  The court cannot relieve  
          a defendant of the obligation to pay a restitution fine. 

          The following chart breaks down the distribution of a Base Fine  
          (the Fine stated in the Statute) and Penalty Assessments

                ------------------------------------------------------- 
               |Base Fine:                                    |$10,000.|
               |                                              |      00|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Penal Code  1464 assessment ($10 for every   |$10,000.|
               |$10):                                         |      00|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Penal Code  1465.7 assessment (20%           |$2,000.0|
               |surcharge):                                   |       0|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Penal Code  1465.8 assessment ($40 per       |  $40.00|
               |criminal offense):                            |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Government Code  70372 assessment ($5 for    |$5,000.0|
               |every $10):                                   |       0|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Government Code  70373 assessment ($30 for   |  $30.00|
               |felony or misdemeanor offense):               |        |









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageI  
          of?
          
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Government Code  76000 assessment ($7 for    |$7,000.0|
               |every $10):                                   |       0|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Government Code  76000.5 assessment ($2 for  |$2,000.0|
               |every $10):                                   |       0|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Government Code  76104.6 assessment ($1 for  |$1,000.0|
               |every $10):                                   |       0|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Government Code  76104.7 assessment ($4 for  |$4,000.0|
               |every $10):                                   |       0|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |----------------------------------------------+--------|
               |Fine with Assessments:                        |        |
               |                                              |$41,070.00 |
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
               |                                              |        |
                ------------------------------------------------------- 


          Other fees and costs apply, including reimbursement to the  
          county for court-appointed counsel.  Large criminal fines may be  
          difficult to collect, as collection could take years of effort  
          and expense.  The estimated amount of uncollected court ordered  
          debt in 2011 was $10.2 billion.<1> 
          

          ---------------------------
          <1>  
          http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/criminal-justice/debt-collecti 
          on/court-ordered-debt-collection-111014.pdf








          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageJ  
          of?
          
          3.Confusing Fine Structure in This Bill and Existing Law

          The purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum misdemeanor  
          fines for unauthorized use or alteration of, or unauthorized  
          access or damage to a computer or computer services from $5,000  
          to $10,000.  The existing fine structure is unusual and  
          confusing.  The following is a representative example:

               (C) For any violation that results in a victim  
               expenditure in an amount greater than five thousand  
               dollars ($5,000), by a fine not exceeding ten thousand  
               dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to  
               subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two  
               or three years, or by both that fine and imprisonment,  
               or by a fine not exceeding five ten  thousand dollars  
               ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not  
               exceeding one year, or by both that fine and  
               imprisonment. (Pen. Code  502, subd. (d)(3)(C).)

          This appears to describe an alternate felony-misdemeanor  
          (wobbler) in two ways: 1) by including two separate maximum  
          fines ($10,000 or $5,000) as stand-alone penalties, and 2)  
          providing that the court can sentence the defendant to a felony  
          sentence pursuant to Penal Code 1170, subdivision (h) or impose  
          a misdemeanor jail term of up to a year.

          Penal Code Section 17, subdivision (b). defines an alternate  
          felony-misdemeanor, or wobbler.  In relevant part, Section 17  
          provides:

               (b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of  
               the court, either by imprisonment in the state prison  
               or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions  
               of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by fine or  
               imprisonment in the county jail, it is a misdemeanor  
               for all purposes under the following circumstances:

               (1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than  
               imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a  
               county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of  
               Section 1170.

          Applying Penal Code Section 17, subdivision (b), to the computer  
          crimes covered by this bill, the sentencing court could impose a  
                    








          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageK  
          of?
          
          fine of up to $10,000, with no felony jail or prison term and  
          the offense would, by definition, be a misdemeanor.  The court  
          could impose a felony jail or prison sentence and no fine, and  
          the offense would be a felony.  The court could impose a felony  
          jail or prison term and a fine of up to $10,000 and the offense  
          would be a felony. Simply stating that a crime is a felony  
          punishable pursuant to Section 1170, subdivision (h), means that  
          the defendant is subject to a sentence of16 months, two years or  
          three years and a fine of up to $10,000.  There is thus no need  
          to specify that the maximum felony fine for a violation of  
          Section 502 is $10,000. 

          It is most likely that an appellate court would find that the  
          maximum fine for a misdemeanor under existing law $5,000, as the  
          misdemeanor jail term is described in conjunction with a fine of  
          up to $5,000.  However, it can also be argued that the court  
          could impose a fine of up to $10,000 and a misdemeanor jail  
          term.  As noted above, if a crime is punishable by a fine alone,  
          it is a wobbler.  If the court punishes the defendant by a  
          county jail term, but not pursuant to Section 1170, subdivision  
          (h), the offense is a misdemeanor.  If the court can impose a  
          fine of up to $10,000 and county jail term, the bill is not  
          necessary.  If the court cannot impose a fine of up to $10,000  
          and a misdemeanor jail term under existing law, the author's  
          intent can be realized by simply striking the reference in the  
          existing statutes to a $5,000 fine. That would provide that the  
          maximum fine for either a misdemeanor or a felony is $10,000.

          Committee staff has found no appellate cases discussing the fine  
          structure in Penal Code Section 502.  In any event, the penalty  
          provisions in Penal Code Section 502 is confusing and should be  
          clarified.

          4.The Statute of Limitations Generally; Law Revision Commission  
          Report
          
          The statute of limitations requires commencement of a  
          prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission  
          of a crime.  A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment  
          or information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to  
          superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant.  (Pen.  
          Code  804.)  The failure of a prosecution to be commenced  
          within the applicable period of limitation is a complete defense  
          to the charge.  The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and  









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageL  
          of?
          
          may be raised as a defense at any time, before or after  
          judgment.  People v.   Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13.  The defense  
          may only be waived under limited circumstances.  (See Cowan v.  
          Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.)

          The Legislature enacted the current statutory scheme regarding  
          statutes of limitations for crimes in 1984 in response to a  
          report of the California Law Revision Commission:

              The Commission identified various factors to be  
              considered in drafting a limitations statute.  These  
              factors include:  (a) The staleness factor.  A person  
              accused of crime should be protected from having to face  
              charges based on possibly unreliable evidence and from  
              losing access to the evidentiary means to defend.  (b)  
              The repose factor.  This reflects society's lack of a  
              desire to prosecute for crimes committed in the distant  
              past.  (c) The motivation factor.  This aspect of the  
              statute imposes a priority among crimes for  
              investigation and prosecution.  (d) The seriousness  
              factor.  The statute of limitations is a grant of  
              amnesty to a defendant; the more serious the crime, the  
              less willing society is to grant that amnesty.  (e) The  
              concealment factor.  Detection of certain concealed  
              crimes may be quite difficult and may require long  
              investigations to identify and prosecute the  
              perpetrators.

              The Commission concluded that a felony limitations  
              statute generally should be based on the seriousness of  
              the crime.  Seriousness is easily determined based on  
              classification of a crime as felony or misdemeanor and  
              the punishment specified, and a scheme based on  
              seriousness generally will accommodate the other factors  
              as well.  Also, the simplicity of a limitations period  
              based on seriousness provides predictability and  
              promotes uniformity of treatment.<2>

          5.The Statute of Limitations Exception in this Bill

          This bill extends the statute of limitation in prosecutions  
          under Penal Code Section 502, subdivision (c).  That subdivision  


          ---------------------------

          <2>  1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses, Section 214 (3rd Ed.  
          2004), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports, pp.308-314.







          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageM  
          of?
          
          is very broad.  It includes many separate crimes for accessing,  
          harming or using a computer, computer system or data in the  
          computer or computer system.  Specifically, the bill extends the  
          statute of limitations if it is alleged that the defendant, in  
          committing one of these crimes, "acquired, copied or  
          distributed" a digital image in which a an intimate - sexual -  
          body part is displayed.  

          The bill does not require that the intimate image itself be  
          illegal or that it be used in the commission of a crime. There  
          is no requirement that the image be of an identifiable person.   
          It can be argued that the image need not include a person's  
          face.  The image could be in the public domain or previously and  
          intentionally distributed by the person depicted.  It also  
          appears that the defendant need not even know that he or she  
          "acquired, copied or distributed" an image of an intimate body  
          part.

          Further, it is not clear when or why a prosecutor would allege  
          that a person "acquired, copied or distributed" an intimate or  
          sexual image in the commission of a computer or compute system  
          offense.  Generally, prosecutor's charge a crime and allege  
          facts that support an enhancements or a sentencing limit or  
          requirement.  Acquiring, copying or distributing a sexual image  
          is not an element of, or inherent in, any of the crimes in  
          subdivision (c) of Section 502, although that conduct might be  
          an element or inherently part of another crime, such as cyber  
          porn revenge, or surreptitious filming of a person in a place  
          where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.  

          The bill thus extends the statute of limitations for a crime  
          because of a fact that is not directly related to the crime.   
          The bill could extend the statute of limitations for one  
          defendant, but not for another charged with the same crime,  
          based on factors that could be essentially random or accidental,  
          or extraneous to the offense.  There are statutes of limitations  
          that are based on factors that are not elements of the crime or  
          inherent in the crime.  However, those factors generally concern  
          the fact that the victim was a minor at the time a sex crime  
          occurred.  While it appears that the statute is extended for  
          crimes that do not include an element that the victim was a  
          minor, sexual conduct with a minor is criminal and the age of  
          the victim would typically be an element of a crime that is  
          included in a greater offense, such as forced oral copulation.  









          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageN  
          of?
          

          Arguably, tolling of the statute of limitations for a computer  
          crime based on the fact that the defendant "acquired, copied or  
          distributed" an intimate digital image should also include a  
          requirement that the acquisition, copying or distribution of the  
          images constitutes criminal conduct, or at least an element of a  
          crime.

          6.Tolling the Statute of Limitation in Cases of Identity Theft -  
            Application to Computer Hacking to Obtain Intimate Images of  
            Another Person

          It appears that many instances of the use of another person's  
          image - especially where the image was stolen from the depicted  
          person's computer - would constitute identity theft.  Identity  
          theft is a very broadly defined offense.  It is essentially the  
          unauthorized use of another person's identifying information for  
          any unlawful purpose.  Identifying information is defined very  
          broadly as well, including name, address, place of employment,  
          biometric data, mother's maiden name and many others.   It  
          appears that the unlawful purpose need not be a crime itself.   
          The statute of limitations for identity theft does not begin to  
          run until the crime has been discovered.  In many situations  
          where it appears that the author intends the statute of  
          limitations in the bill to apply, the tolling provisions  
          applicable to identity theft would apply. 

          The most infamous purveyor of non-consensual personal sexual  
          images on the Internet is Hunter Moore. Moore ran a website on  
          which he and others posted nude photos that were often described  
          as "revenge porn," because posters were often men eager to  
          humiliate former partners.  Moore went far beyond simply posting  
          images provided to him by others.  He employed a man named  
          Charles Evens to hack into e-mail accounts to obtain the images.  
           Moore and Evens recently pleaded guilty in federal court to  
          computer hacking crimes and identity theft.<3>  


          In addition to hacking issues, using the images of actors and  
          ---------------------------


          <3>  
          http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/18/us/ap-us-revenge-porn. 
          html








          AB 32  (Waldron )                                         PageO  
          of?
          
          other celebrities can constitute a violation of a celebrity's  
          copyright or publicity rights.   Under California law an actor,  
          singer or other celebrity generally has a right to control and  
          gain from the commercial value of his or her image, voice and  
          other characteristics.  (Cal. Civ. Code  3344.1.)  Unauthorized  
          use of a celebrity's image could perhaps be the basis of an  
          identity theft prosecution.


          7.Prior Legislation  

          AB 1649 (Waldron) - Ch. 379, Stats. of 2014, specified the  
          penalties for any person who disrupts or causes the disruption  
          of, adds, alters, damages, destroys, provides or assists in  
          providing a means of accessing, or introduces any computer  
          contaminant into a "government computer system" or a "public  
          safety infrastructure computer system," as specified, and  
          changed and added the definition of specified terms.

          SB 255 (Canella) - Ch. 466, Stats. of 2013 and SB 1255  
          (Cannella) - Ch. 863, Stats. of 2014 created and expanded a new  
          misdemeanor for the distribution of a sexual or intimate image  
          of an identifiable person where the distributor and the person  
          depicted have agreed the images shall remain private. The  
          offense includes the elements of serious emotional distress to  
          the depicted person, which the distributor knew or should have  
          known would have occurred. 

                                      -- END -