刑法第358條並沒有定義什麼是電腦。不過，這應該是正確的作法，因為實務可以因而有較大的彈性，以因應未來的科技發展。即便是要在法條中明文電腦的意義，也應該參考美國聯邦電腦詐欺及濫用防制法(CFAA)的規定，採取較為開放的定義。本文也建議刑法第358條的構成要件行為應修正為「無故入侵」電腦即為已足。至於「無故輸入他人帳號密碼」、「破解使用電腦之保護措施」或「利用電腦系統之漏洞」應屬蛇足的規定。「無故入侵」的解釋，可以參考美國聯邦電腦詐欺及濫用防制法(CFAA)中，關於「無（越）權使用」的規定及相關判決。

It is accurate for the legislature not to define what a computer is in article 358 because the absence of the definition makes it flexible for the law enforcement to respond the rapid technology development. The legislature ought to visit CFAA even thought it wants to give a definition. This article suggests that actus reus requirements of the current article 358 are improper. It is unnecessary to narrow down the actus reus requirement to inputting other's account and password, hacking the protecting measure of a computer, and making use of the hole of computer system. The proper actus reus requirement should be "accessing a computer without authorization, or exceeding authorized access." When interpreting and applying, we could refer to CFAA and the judicial decisions thereof.