It's the reason most hackers or online criminals are convicted of other crimes.

(I work in this area and have studied the US laws quite recently).

EDIT: perhaps "show intent" is a better way of putting it.

Knowing that someone used your password to send information is enough.

"The court of appeals acknowledged that analysis of the "transmission" element and its required proof was a novel issue for the court under the specific provisions of 18 USC § 1030(a) (5) (A). Yet, the court interpreted the word transmission under this provision by assimilating this term with the wire fraud crime, which also requires the element of transmission. Thus, the court used the Wire Fraud Act interpretation of the word transmission and held that "circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that the transmission has occurred." Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the prosecution proof that transmissions were associated to defendant's passwords, despite the employee's claim that the network was not secured and that other employees could have accessed those passwords."

"To commit wire fraud, one must (1) devise, or intend to devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud another person on the basis of a material representation, and (2) do it with the intent to defraud, and (3) do it through the use of interstate wire facilities (i.e. telecommunications of any kind)."

Every single piece of literature (including that case) will include the word "intentionally" somewhere :) It's the bread and butter for hacking laws.

(I cant find much on the case you cite specifically, but from what I did find it sounds like the point your discussing is the proof that it was him that did the dirty deed - when other people could have had his password and done it. Which is an important point, but separate from intent - which they would have still had to prove).

It's much the same principle as how they took down Al Capone for income tax evasion [1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Impris...