A mother and her teen daughter are facing criminal charges after the mother used the password she was given by her school employer without permission to look around in the school's internal computer system and then rigged the school's Homecoming Queen vote so that her daughter would win. Florida Teen Faces Potentially Serious Prison Time After Allegedly Rigging Homecoming Queen Vote with Mom’s Help (msn.com) I see a few issues with this, that are worth pointing out. Nothing of economic value was stolen, there was no physical damage, there was not really any damage that you could put a monetary value on, no one was physically harmed. In some ways, all of this concerns misuse of information. You can argue what this woman did was wrong, but should doing something wrong automatically translate into criminal punishment? As a matter of principle. Emily Grover, 18, was still a minor when she and her mother, Laura Carroll, 50, allegedly hacked into the Escambia County School District's internal computer system in order to game the outcome of an October 2020 homecoming vote. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement began investigating the incident in November after the school district reported unauthorized access into hundreds of student accounts. The teen was aided by her mother's employment within the school district as an assistant principal at nearby Bellview Elementary School, authorities said. Carroll, as an employee of the district, had administrator-style access to an online system used by students. The department says that Carroll's account FOCUS account credentials were used to gain access to the system, and said that electronic records showed that Carroll's cell phone and computers associated with the family's residence was used to access the system numerous times. One of the teachers said, "When Emily Grover was a sophomore in class, I recall times that she logged onto her moms focus account and openly shared information, grades, schedules, etc. with others. She did not seem like logging in was a big deal and was very comfortable with doing so." Carroll was suspended from her job and her daughter was expelled from Tate High School. Carroll and her daughter each face one count each of: (1) offenses against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices; (2) unlawful use of a two-way communications device; (3) criminal use of personally identifiable information; and (4) and conspiracy. Under these charges, Florida law could theoretically allow them each to be sentenced to up to 16 years in prison.
This almost seems like more of an issue for the school district to handle with disciplinary action than it does to have the state get involved with criminal charges. It's obvious the school's "FOCUS" computer system in question here was not that secure and even almost kind of casual. I don't think the legislators who passed those laws really envisioned them being applied in a case exactly like this.
She had access to privileged personal information, and for minors at that, and therefore had a legal responsibility to protect that information and play her part in keeping it secure within the rules and regulations that applied to that access. She is accused of wilfully and repeatedly breaking that responsibility, not only by her own access but apparently by giving her daughter free access as well. It isn't definitively clear that no harm was done since it isn't clear the entire extent of the data accessed, shared or changed (which is part of the problem) but even if there wasn't anything significant, there was the risk of that (intentionally or not) their alleged actions could have led to some kind of significant harm, which is why the rules and laws around this kind of system access exist. I'd be like saying dangerous driving shouldn't be illegal as long as you don't hit anyone or trespassing shouldn't be illegal as long as you don't steal or damage anything. Laws are often as much about doing things which carry an identifiable risk of harm rather than actually causing any. Sure, but laws tend to have ranges of possible sentences with defined maximums to account for exactly this. Any law will obviously cover a wide range of behaviour with a wide range of intent, risks and consequence so if someone is convicted, their sentence can be set at a level appropriate to the seriousness of their crime. If this woman is convicted, I guarantee she won't receive anything close to 16 years in prison.
The crown they awarded her as the "winner" had economic value. I am guessing one could put a monetary value on it easily by finding out how much it cost.
I would be interested to see how these charges are demonstrated in court. I mean they clearly cheated and mom shouldn't work at the school anymore, but it sounds like they're stretching to find laws actually broken ...possibly because of how hard it can be to fire people from certain schools.
In the context of the actual charges I don't think that should be an issue. You should note that fixing the homecoming queen vote isn't the only (or even most important) thing they're accused of, that's just the reason they were caught and the eye-catching headline the hacks went for.
Some might question whether there should be a legal responsibility. It seems like a little bit of an artificial imposition. Kind of analogous to how some private businesses might post a sign that you are not allowed to bring something into their place business, and then having the government make it a criminal violation, even if the person who violated the rule was never told to leave. But the question is, should this be a matter for the school to handle, or a matter for the government. We are talking about how that "rule" is going to be enforced, not what the rule is. Yes, but trespassing is a physical act. This was more of an "electronic act", not really a physical act. What this really all revolves around, if you stop to think about it, is just information. This is something I've brought up numerous times before in other threads, it is a crime of information. (And while I recognize in some cases we need those types of crimes, in extreme cases, like using privileged access to reveal the identity of undercover spies to the enemy, I think it is mostly not a good concept)
I agree, there is no chance they will be sentenced anywhere close to 16 years in this case, but this is an example of how much discretion these laws can leave in the hands of the judge. It does have to be seen as a potential defect in the law, or inherent problem with the nature of these laws. In other cases that are very different from this one, it can allow the judge to punish the defendant for things they were not convicted of, or even other separate things they should not be punished for. We should recognize that, in one sense, the laws don't really (in actual practical application) always tell how long the prison sentence should be or place a limit on the prison sentence. This is something many people don't realize and have trouble understanding, unless actual examples of it are explained to them, which can be little bit complicated.
What I'm thinking is the state police authorities assisted with the investigation, because there were concerns by the school district, and now since they spent all that time investigating they think it's only appropriate that the culprits they found should face criminal punishment from the state, as usually happens at the end of an investigation. If the police hadn't spent all that time investigating, and the school knew exactly who had done it and for what reasons in the first place, most likely police would have not referred this for criminal charges. They want a "payoff" of a "justification" for all the time and resources spent investigating. That's a common reason that authorities sometimes go after people for very small things, because it's the end result of a long investigation. (They initially thought there might be some bigger crime, but there wasn't)
So anyone with access to personal information should be free to do anything they want with it? With no legal responsibility, there would be no reason for the school to punish her, or indeed even admit the breach. The school didn't make the rule though. They have a legal responsibility to keep personal data they hold safe and secure, that responsibility it just extended to anyone they grant legitimate access to. I don't see why something being "electronic" means it can't be criminal, especially not in the modern era. There have always been laws around securing and protecting information, regardless of whether it is held in a physical or electronic form because information can be powerful and dangerous. School data can include medical records, legal information and educational data that could impact the entire live of students. I'd expect the system would hold information about staff as well, again, medical, legal or financial. We don't actually know whether this alleged breach revealed any such information but it certainly could have done (again, intentionally or not). I know that I've got that kind of data held by several organisations and I like to know that there are strict laws in place to keep that data safe and secure. I also have access to around three million medical records as part of my job and have absolutely no issue with the legal obligations I had to sign up to because of that.
That's not exactly what I said. There are other ways to try to have some control over information, that does not involve government getting involved. That does not make sense. The school can still discipline her with no legal responsibility existing. There is no reason the school should be legally forced to admit the breach.
At last. Definitive proof that elections in the US are rigged!!!!! Trump and all his loyal followers have finally been proven right. Here is all the evidence they need to rightly disqualify Biden.
