4 ms·

Can somebody please clarify, Facebook initiated a civil suit base on the CFAA violation, after the cease-and-desists? Facebook then sued, claiming that Power’s

Can somebody please clarify, Facebook initiated a civil suit base on the CFAA violation, after the cease-and-desists? Facebook then sued, claiming that Power’s conduct violated the CFAA So, was there a government initiated prosecution for this criminal violation? How can you use CFAA violations in civil court without a criminal conviction of the violation? By using preponderance of evidence in lieu of reasonable doubt seems troubling for a criminal violation, or is this not the situation?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> So, was there a government initiated prosecution for this criminal violation? There was no alleged criminal violation. CFAA provides both civil and criminal causes of action; the interpretation that this sets a standard for criminal law is not that this was a criminal violation, but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions. > How can you use CFAA violations in civil court without a criminal conviction of the violation? You can do so because the CFAA explicitly creates a civil cause of action not dependent on a criminal conviction, > By using preponderance of evidence in lieu of reasonable doubt seems troubling for a criminal violation, or is this not the situation? There is (in general) no "criminal violation" involved in a civil CFAA action.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware CFAA provided civil causes of action. but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions Since it applies to both, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, would still be higher, no?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Since it applies to both, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, would still be higher, no? Yes, even where the same fact question applies to establish criminal liability as exists to establish civil liability, in a criminal case the prosecution will be obliged to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil action it will only need to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> So, was there a government initiated prosecution for this criminal violation? There was no alleged criminal violation. CFAA provides both civil and criminal causes of action; the interpretation that this sets a standard for criminal law is not that this was a criminal violation, but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions. > How can you use CFAA violations in civil court without a criminal conviction of the violation? You can do so because the CFAA explicitly creates a civil cause of action not dependent on a criminal conviction, > By using preponderance of evidence in lieu of reasonable doubt seems troubling for a criminal violation, or is this not the situation? There is (in general) no "criminal violation" involved in a civil CFAA action.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware CFAA provided civil causes of action. but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions Since it applies to both, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, would still be higher, no?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Since it applies to both, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, would still be higher, no? Yes, even where the same fact question applies to establish criminal liability as exists to establish civil liability, in a criminal case the prosecution will be obliged to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil action it will only need to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.