Words needed for acts based on stolen data

People working for police- and defence authorities these days monitor PCs people use for personal- and work related tasks. Data people get access to in such jobs shall not be used in any way, and there is a need for two words to describe the crimes commited when it happens. For example:

"Datatheftact degree 1" when the act based on someone elses data in itself is no crime.

"Datatheftact degree 2" when the act based on someone elses data in itself is a crime.

The reason for this is that a dataowner will perceive use and abuse of his or her private and unshared data as a crime regardless of how it is used/abused, and regardless of who does it. It is a crime against the dataowner either way.

Two words are needed because the crime is even more serious against the dataowner when the act based on data in itself is a crime.

This is very important in our time and people having jobs to monitor peoples pcs must be told there is a zero tolerance for use of such data in any way.

A first crime can be said to be committed against the dataowner when someone without his or her acceptance, and/or without his or her awareance of it, accesses his or her data. A second crime is committed when someone acts on details in the data, and the degree of seriousness increases with the degree of seriousness of crime committed.

When someone acts on other peoples data without the awareness of the dataowner and the act is a crime one can also say that the combination should give the person who committ the crime a stricter sentence than the crime in itself normally would give, when it is likely that it is a conscious act intended to cause problems for the dataowner.

The same way of thinking should be applied to what is said by people, because of the availability of technology that makes it possible to tap people and record what people say without their awareness. People still have emotions and emotions are not the same as criminal acts. Saying something is no crime even if what is said can give reason to wonder sometimes. It is possible to say for example " the person should have bern shot for stupidity" without meaning that the person should have been shot and many people have used the expression throughout history. That is no true motive for shoting someone.

This is important to protect people better against tactical abuse of technologies and of tactical abuse of stolen data and said words.