Re: Criminal or civil action
"In short, this case will live and die by a strict discussion of the word "authorized" - to be or not to be."
No. It turns on (a) what he was authorised to do and (b) intent. The charge was that he intentionally caused damage without authorisation. If he wants to argue this on contract terms he needs to point to the clause in his contract where, by implication or otherwise, he was authorised to commit damage. Not just access systems or even delete stuff, but commit actual intentional damage. The intent bit comes in when he does an rm -rf * or equivalent in several different places where that's damaging; once might be an accident but repeatedly on the same occasion?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
