Self-study
Lawyer: One is justified in accessing information in computer files without securing authorization from the computer's owner only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business. ███ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ █ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ███████ ███ ███████ █████████████ ██ ██████████
Summary
The first principle tells us a necessary condition (”only if”) for being justified in accessing computer info without authorization from the computer’s owner. Here’s one way to express that principle:
If computer NOT typically used in operation of a business → NOT justified in accessing info without authorization from owner
Here’s the second principle:
If typically used in operation of a business AND it’s reasonable to believe that the computer has info that can be evidence in a legal proceeding against the owner → accessing computer info without authorization is JUSTIFIED
Find or Complete the Application
The first principle tells us what allows us to conclude that accessing info is NOT JUSTIFIED.
The second principle tells us what allows us to conclude that accessing info IS JUSTIFIED.
The correct answer can use either principle. If using the first, the conclusion will say that access is NOT JUSTIFIED, and the evidence will establish that the computer is not typically used in the operation of a business.
If using the second principle, the conclusion will say that access IS JUSTIFIED, and the evidence will establish that the computer is typically used to operate a business, and there’s reasonable grounds to think there’s stuff on the computer that can be used as evidence in a legal proceeding.
18.
The principles stated by the ██████ ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
Rey gave his ██████ █████ █ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████
Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that the action was justified. In order to reach that conclusion, we need to use the second principle. But the evidence doesn’t establish that there’s reasonable grounds to think the computer info has evidence that can be used in a legal proceeding.
b
Police department investigators ████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ███ ██████████████ ██████ ███ ██████████
Correct, because it validly uses the second principle. The premises establish that the computer is typically used in operation of a business (because it’s the central computer owned by a consulting firm). They also establish that it was reasonable to think the computer would have evidence that can be used in a legal proceeding against the owner (because the investigator had “reasonable beliefs” that there would be evidence of wrongdoing). Thus, using the second principle, we can conclude that accessing info on the computer was justified. It doesn’t matter that no evidence of wrongdoing was actually found.
c
A police officer █████████ ███████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████
Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that the action was not justified, so the argument must rely on the first principle. But the premises don’t establish that the computer was not typically used in operation of a business.
d
Customs officials examined ███ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████████
Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that the action was justified, so the argument must rely on the second principle. But the premises don’t establish that there were reasonable grounds to believe the computer contained evidence that can be used in a legal proceeding. The premises establish only that there were reasonable grounds to think the computer was typically used in operation of a legitimate business.
e
Against the company ███████ ███████ █ ██████ ███████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████
Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that an action was not justified, so the argument relies on the first principle. But the premises do not establish that the computer was not typically used in operation of a business.