People v. Versaggi, 83 N.Y.2d 123 (1994)
Under New York Penal Law, intentionally activating existing instructions within a computer program to cause it to deviate from its intended function constitutes “altering” the program, even if the underlying code remains unchanged.
Summary
Versaggi, a computer technician, was convicted of computer tampering for using his access to Eastman Kodak’s telephone system to shut down phone lines. He argued that he merely activated existing shutdown instructions, not altering the program itself. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that intentionally using the program to cause it to malfunction constitutes altering it within the meaning of the statute. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the computer crime statutes was to broadly address computer misuse and that a narrow interpretation would undermine this goal.
Facts
Eastman Kodak’s telephone system was operated by two SL-100 computers. Versaggi, a Kodak computer technician with access to the system, used his home computer to remotely access the SL-100 systems on two occasions. On November 10, 1986, he entered commands that shut down approximately 2,560 phone lines at Kodak Park, impairing another 1,920 lines for about 90 minutes. On November 19, 1986, he accessed the SL-100 system at Kodak’s State Street office and shut down all phone service for four minutes, disconnecting outside calls. Kodak investigators traced the intrusions back to Versaggi’s home computer using phone bills and system logs. Versaggi did not add or delete any code but activated existing instructions within the program.
Procedural History
The Rochester City Court found Versaggi guilty of two counts of computer tampering in the second degree. The County Court affirmed the City Court’s decision without issuing an opinion. Versaggi appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that his actions did not constitute altering a computer program under Penal Law § 156.20.
Issue(s)
Whether intentionally activating existing instructions within a computer program to cause it to deviate from its intended function constitutes “altering” the program under Penal Law § 156.20, even if the underlying code remains unchanged.
Holding
Yes, because the legislative intent behind the computer crime statutes was to broadly address computer misuse, and Versaggi’s actions sabotaged the intended purpose of the computer programs.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the legislative intent behind the 1986 amendments to the Penal Law, which aimed to create a comprehensive scheme for addressing computer crime. The Court noted that the legislature intentionally broadened the definitions of property and written instruments to encompass computer data and programs. While the statute does not define “alter”, the court used its ordinary meaning – to change or modify. The court stated, “When something is altered it is made ‘different in some particular characteristic * * * without changing [it] into something else’ (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 63 [Unabridged]).” The court reasoned that Versaggi’s actions, by interrupting telephone service, made the programs “different in some particular characteristic.” The court rejected a narrow interpretation that would only penalize physical changes to the code, stating that such a view would undermine the legislative goal of preventing computer misuse. “Whether defendant used existing instructions to direct the phone system off-line or input new instructions accomplishing the same thing is legally irrelevant. He made the system ‘different in some particular characteristic * * * without changing [it] to something else’…His conduct differed only in degree from shutting down the system by executing a command to add or delete program material. In either event, the result would be the same. The intended purpose of the computer program is sabotaged.”