Clarifies crime of unlawful access concerning certain password protected communications in electronic storage.
Summary
A4782 amends New Jersey’s wiretapping and electronic communications law to clarify when accessing stored electronic communications becomes a crime. The bill focuses on password-protected communications in electronic storage, such as email accounts, and specifies that a person commits unlawful access if they obtain, alter, or block access to such communications without first knowing and entering the password or personal code, or without the express consent of at least one person who owns that password or code.
The bill creates two levels of criminal liability under the existing statute. The basic offense remains a fourth-degree crime, while the offense becomes a third-degree crime if the access is done for commercial advantage, private commercial gain, or malicious destruction or damage. The bill also states that there is no implied consent defense based on a user failing to log out or otherwise leave an account unsecured, and it applies prospectively to unlawful access occurring on or after the effective date.
Impact
The bill would amend N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-27, the section governing unlawful access to stored communications, by defining unauthorized access more specifically for password-protected electronic communications. It would also reinforce related civil liability under the wiretap law by clarifying the criminal conduct that can support a civil action by an aggrieved person. The practical effect is to broaden and clarify enforcement against unauthorized access to email and similar stored communications, while preserving existing exceptions for authorized service providers, users accessing their own communications, and conduct covered elsewhere in the wiretap statute.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be presented as a technical clarification rather than a controversial policy shift. Its stated purpose is to remove ambiguity in the law and align criminal liability with modern password-protected communications. There is no evidence in the provided materials of formal opposition, amendments, or divided voting, so the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive.
Contention
The main point of contention addressed by the bill is whether a person can claim implied consent or avoid liability when a password-protected account is left open or a user fails to log out. The bill rejects that defense by requiring actual knowledge of and entry of the password or personal code, or express consent from a party to whom the code belongs. Another potential issue is the scope of criminal liability for ordinary access versus access done for commercial gain or malicious purposes, but the bill itself resolves that by assigning different degrees of offense. No specific stakeholders or opposing viewpoints are identified in the provided record.