The alleged crime is unauthorized access to a government communication system and has nothing to do with covid-19 data.
The evidence provided in the article for the crime is flimsy at best however. The communication system had a shared username and password for everyone and the warrant was reported to be based on an IP address that was believed to be the source of the unauthorized access.
It seems reasonable to go 50/50 on either of:
1. they looked for and found a reason to charge her with this as retribution for her work.
2. she was disgruntled enough about being let go that she illegally accessed a poorly secured government system to send a retaliatory communication.
There is no where near enough information to know which is which though.
The evidence provided in the article for the crime is flimsy at best however. The communication system had a shared username and password for everyone and the warrant was reported to be based on an IP address that was believed to be the source of the unauthorized access.
It seems reasonable to go 50/50 on either of:
1. they looked for and found a reason to charge her with this as retribution for her work.
2. she was disgruntled enough about being let go that she illegally accessed a poorly secured government system to send a retaliatory communication.
There is no where near enough information to know which is which though.