Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

Criminal vs. employment wrongdoing

• Many argue leaking employer data (especially from police/dispatch) is a serious breach of trust and clear grounds for termination, even “never hire again” territory.
• Others stress the distinction between civil/employment issues and criminal law: not every policy or NDA violation should become a state-prosecuted crime.

Is this theft, trespass, or computer fraud?

• Some see the act as “stealing their stuff” and think criminal charges (theft or similar) are justified.
• Others counter that copying isn’t classic theft (no deprivation of the original), and that calling this “computer fraud/trespass” is especially strained since the footage was captured by pointing a phone at a monitor.
• One commenter notes the actual plea was to a trespass-type computer statute requiring “malicious intent”; with a no-contest plea, the state never had to prove that intent.

Property, IP, and trade secrets

• Thread debates whether leaked CCTV footage is “property” in a legal sense and if copying it can be theft.
• Some treat any unauthorized data exfiltration as theft of intangible property (privacy, trade secrets, competitive advantage).
• Others insist “theft” historically implies deprivation of use and that digital/IP “theft” is really fraud, infringement, or contract breach.
• A lawyer notes trade-secret law requires real economic value and secrecy; random security footage of a public taxiway likely doesn’t qualify.

Security, race, and public interest

• One line of argument: revealing camera positions at an airport can meaningfully aid attackers; that makes the leak dangerous.
• Others reply the crash was in public view and likely FOIA-/records-eligible, so harm is unclear.
• One commenter raises concern that the leaker’s identity (Black, Muslim name) may have influenced how aggressively security risks were framed and prosecuted.
• Several say this isn’t “whistleblowing” or Pentagon Papers–level public interest, more like morbid rubbernecking.

Overbroad computer crime laws & plea bargaining

• Commenters highlight how vague computer crime laws (state CFAA analogues, ToS-violation statutes) give prosecutors wide latitude; “if you’ve been near a computer, they can charge you.”
• Some worry people plead to borderline or even inapplicable charges out of fear, and that bad advice or overcharging can lock in unjust outcomes.

Chilling effects and censorship

• A broader thread connects this case to “anticipatory obedience” and self-censorship: people and platforms over-redact or suppress material to avoid legal or corporate backlash.
• Example: a towing company now heavily blurs logos and labels in accident videos on YouTube despite no clear IP or privacy issue, out of fear of takedowns.
• Several see this as part of a wider drift toward top-down, employer- and platform-driven control over what the public can see.