Lawyer: One is justified in accessing information in computer files

Tough call between B and D, but B stands as the clear winner, and here's why. Let's focus on the question and highlight some major information on the premise.

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. If, in addition, there exist reasonable grounds for believing that such a computer contains data usable as evidence in a legal proceeding against the computer’s owner, then accessing the data in those computer files without the owner’s authorization is justified.


So 2 conditions for providing justification: 1. The computer should be used in a business operation. (Mandatory ) 2. In addition, if there are legal proceedings or reasonable grounds to believe in fraudulent activities.

In D, it is nowhere mentioned that the laptop confiscated WAS USED for the importer's business. It could have been his PC with just some files on it. In B however, the computer was used for business, and since the consulting firm was on trial, there was a reason to believe that there could be evidence.

B stands as the clear winner.

Please hit KUDOS if you agree with my reasoning

Easy way to eliminate D is a subtle hint CONFISCATE which means to lay claim or take possession of things / objects/ property as if police suspecting thief and criminal belongings taken by them which is whole different scenario ... we here are only concerned with the principle where accessing file in normal state of business without owner's authority...
whereas confiscating is almost always associated with legal matters and confiscating something is inevitably a right of authority IN SUMMARY - it will be a whole different scenario .
i hope it was useful.

For those confused between B and D:

(D) Customs officials examined all of the files stored on a laptop computer confiscated from an importer whom they suspected of smuggling. Because there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in the operation of the importer’s LEGITIMATE business, the customs officials’ action was justified.

This one word makes option D incorrect, as it destroys this option's logic.

Had it been ILLEGITIMATE, this option could have been correct.

Hi AndrewN and VeritasKarishma can you please help me on why D is wrong? I was stuck between B and D and couldn't eliminate either of them confidently.

Hello, RohitSaluja. I may not be able to comb through CR questions as efficiently as Karishma, but I typically arrive at the correct conclusion, and that proved to be the case here. I will use the color-coded image below to discuss the question in full.


Notice, first, that the passage outlines two ways in which 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
• only if reasonable grounds exist for believing that information found in this manner may be usable as evidence in a legal proceeding against the computer's owner

With these criteria in mind, we can assess the answer choices.

Answer choice (A) fails because permission was granted for someone to access a business computer for personal use, looking up the phone number of a friend, and that situation is not covered in the conditions above.

Answer choice (B) works because all conditions are met: the computer was used for business purposes, there is a trial to hold the business owners accountable for fraudulent business practices, and the investigators have reasonable beliefs for having accessed the computer files. In short, there is nothing to find fault with in this option.

Answer choice (C) fails because the criterion for establishing that the police officer was not justified in accessing computer files is that no evidence usable in any legal proceeding was found, and the outcome of the search for evidence has no relation to the conditions in the passage.

Answer choice (D) fails because the one missing piece is the legal proceeding, not to mention that it is difficult to reconcile smuggling and legitimate business. Did the customs officials seize the wrong computer? Do they intend to prosecute the importer? There are a few pieces missing from the picture, enough for us to disfavor this option and get behind the safer one in (B).

Answer choice (E) fails because, according to the conditions of the passage, the police officer should be justified in combing through the computer files. The nature of the particular files accessed goes beyond the scope of the passage.

I hope that helps you appreciate why (B) is a better, safer answer than (D). I tend to spend longer on these nuanced LSAT questions to ensure that the logical connection is airtight. But I would rather get an answer correct in such a manner than chase an incorrect one in a shorter time and then wonder why I had missed the question.

Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew

Accessing info from a computer without authorisation of owner is justified:
1. Only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business
2. There exist reasonable grounds for believing that such a computer contains data usable as evidence in a legal proceeding against the computer’s owner

So to access without authorisation, it is NECESSARY that the computer should be typically used in the operation of business and there should be reasonable grounds to believe that the computer could provide evidence in legal proceedings against the owner.

This principle is applied effectively is which of the following cases?

(A) Rey gave his friend Sunok a key to the store where he worked and asked her to use the store owners’ computer to look up their friend Jim’s phone number, which Rey kept on the computer. Because Sunok had Rey’s permission, her action was justified.

Irrelevant. This is related to personal data retrieval and has nothing to do with evidence in a legal proceeding.

(B) Police department investigators accessed the electronic accounting files of the central computer owned by a consulting firm that was on trial for fraudulent business practices without seeking permission from the firm’s owners. Contrary to the investigators’ reasonable beliefs, however, the files ultimately provided no evidence of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the investigators’ action was justified.

The Police accessed the central computer of a consulting firm. So we know that the computer was used for business. Also, the firm was on trial for fraudulent business and the Police had reasonable belief that the files would provide evidence of fraud. Hence, accessing the computer was justified as per our principle.
Finally, whether the files did provide evidence or not is irrelevant. The point is that our principle was correctly used in this situation.

(C) A police officer accessed, without Natalie’s permission, files on the computer that Natalie owned and used exclusively in the operation of her small business. Since the police officer’s search of the files on Natalie’s computer produced no evidence usable in any legal proceeding against Natalie, the police officer’s action was clearly not justified.

We know that if the computer is mostly for personal use, then unauthorised access is not ok. But a computer used for business could be accessed in certain cases such as when there is reasonable grounds to believe that it will provide evidence in a legal proceeding against the owner. Whether the police actually found evidence or not does not say whether the action of accessing the computer was justified or not.


(D) Customs officials examined all of the files stored on a laptop computer confiscated from an importer whom they suspected of smuggling. Because there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in the operation of the importer’s legitimate business, the customs officials’ action was justified.

This is a problem: ... because there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in the operation of the importer’s legitimate business... Reasonable grounds is not enough. It is necessary that the computer should have been used for business. The reasonable grounds should be present for the belief that it will provide evidence.
Hence this option is incorrect.


(E) Against the company owner’s wishes, a police officer accessed some of the files on one of the company’s computers. Although the computer was typically used in the operation of the company’s business, the particular files accessed by the police officer were personal letters written by one of the company’s employees. Thus, the police officer’s unauthorized use of the computer was not justified.

The computer was a company computer so the necessary condition is met. We don't know whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the letters could provide evidence.
So we cannot say whether the access was justified or not.

Answer (B)