5 ms·

I agree that the ruling is correct. The officer was granted the accesses he had, and he was fully authorized to use them. He violated a department policy by u

I agree that the ruling is correct. The officer was granted the accesses he had, and he was fully authorized to use them. He violated a department policy by using his access improperly. The government wants to turn policy violations into a felony, and even set up a sting operation in this case to get a felony conviction. The officer should be disciplined/fired/etc. for violating department policy, but the CFAA should not be used to turn him into a felon.

yarcob 5y ago
The problem is that the officer is corrupt, and he should be charged for taking a bribe. I don't think corruption is "just a policy violation", but I don't know enough about US law to know if taking bribes make you a felon or not (I would hope so, but I assume it depends on circumstances). In any case, it shouldn't matter that he used a computer to commit a crime. If he had gotten the relevant information by reading them from a paper file or by asking a coworker the crime should be the same, in my opinion.
- Natsu 5y ago
  I think that what the officer did is likely illegal for other reasons. So this ruling doesn't mean the officer deserves no punishment, it just means they committed some other crime than unauthorized access to a computer system.
- rPlayer6554 5y ago
  But then he should be charged under the set of laws pertaining to bribery or corruption. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The question is should this crime of corruption get a massive additional pentaly specifically because it was committed on a computer. The supreme court says that this law has a purpose: to catch people who gain unauthorized access to computers. If laws are interpreted too broadly, they can be used to overcharge people. The example given by the supreme court is that if this law covers unauthorized use of a computer you are authorized to have access to, then sending a personal email on a work computer can be a felony.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    One thing that's weird about the Justice system is that there are so many laws. I agree that what the police officer did should be a crime, but it seems like there are potentially many ways to slice it. Maybe it's bribery, stalking, sharing privileged information, prior to this ruling CFAA, maybe other crimes too. If you add up all the crimes that may have been committed here it seems like the punishment gets pretty severe. Even 18 months in prison for this already seems severe to me. I would think justice is more like getting fired, fined, and community service rather than prison.
thayne 5y ago
I would hope that there are stronger protections against such abuses of authorization. What if a police officer (or system administrator, etc.) sold information about a potential victim to a criminal that resulted in physical or financial harm to said victim?
- the_pwner224 5y ago
  That is / should be illegal on its own, the fact that the information was obtained through a computer system instead of a paper file doesn't change anything in your example.
secothroa 5y ago
>and he was fully authorized to use them This line is the crux, and the problem is that "authorized" means subtle, yet critically important, different things to different people. The officer was surely "authorized" in the sense that he had technical authorization to log into the system and accomplish the task. But in the sense that "authorization" is defined by more than just technical controls, and also has to do with many dynamic situations that technical controls can't often restrict (or just aren't in place), it doesn't sound like was "authorized". Think of walking into a restaurant and they have a sign that says "Employees Only Behind Counter". Even if there was no technical/physical control preventing you from going behind the counter (eg there was no locked door or anything like that), I think it would still be understood that you as a customer do not have "authorization" to go back there. In my experience as a security consultant, my technically-minded clients typically think of "authorization" as the first way, defined by technical controls and thinking that lack of technical controls in a system means they have carte blanche to do whatever they want with that system. But my experience with anyone outside of tech is that they don't think of it that way at all, and that just because you have the physical/technical ability to do something does not make it okay to do that. "Authorization" is an overloaded term and the CFAA suffer for it, but personally I do not think an average person would think the officer was "authorized" to do what he did, even if he did have the technical access to do it. The points about "average employees technically violating the CFAA by doing stuff like reading the news on their work laptop" are valid concerns and I think they need to be resolved, but I think that is a completely different concern than someone like this officer abusing their access for legitimately bad acts.
- Natsu 5y ago
  You're right about a lot of that, but there are huge problems with making mere policy violations into federal felonies. We want to stop people from hacking stuff, but at the same time, we can't do that by giving every random company the power to make things into federal felonies via their own complex and often-ignored rules. I posted up thread too, but my own personal view is that unauthorized access should hinge on whether the person used deception to obtain access. That provides a clear separation between lawful and unlawful conduct without giving private parties the power to define new felonies. With computers, I don't think that the proverbial "employees only" sign on a load of private data means anything and the incentive should be on the business to provide a proper access control there. Meanwhile, if they add a guard who asks "are you an employee?" and you lie to them to get access, I would say you're unauthorized. That gives us some semblance of mens rea while not going to far in any direction, I believe.
pessimizer 5y ago
I'm absolutely fine with him being charged with a felony, as he is a corrupt government official, I just don't think that felony should be hacking.

yarcob 5y ago

The problem is that the officer is corrupt, and he should be charged for taking a bribe. I don't think corruption is "just a policy violation", but I don't know enough about US law to know if taking bribes make you a felon or not (I would hope so, but I assume it depends on circumstances). In any case, it shouldn't matter that he used a computer to commit a crime. If he had gotten the relevant information by reading them from a paper file or by asking a coworker the crime should be the same, in my opinion.

Natsu 5y ago
I think that what the officer did is likely illegal for other reasons. So this ruling doesn't mean the officer deserves no punishment, it just means they committed some other crime than unauthorized access to a computer system.
rPlayer6554 5y ago
But then he should be charged under the set of laws pertaining to bribery or corruption. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The question is should this crime of corruption get a massive additional pentaly specifically because it was committed on a computer. The supreme court says that this law has a purpose: to catch people who gain unauthorized access to computers. If laws are interpreted too broadly, they can be used to overcharge people. The example given by the supreme court is that if this law covers unauthorized use of a computer you are authorized to have access to, then sending a personal email on a work computer can be a felony.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  One thing that's weird about the Justice system is that there are so many laws. I agree that what the police officer did should be a crime, but it seems like there are potentially many ways to slice it. Maybe it's bribery, stalking, sharing privileged information, prior to this ruling CFAA, maybe other crimes too. If you add up all the crimes that may have been committed here it seems like the punishment gets pretty severe. Even 18 months in prison for this already seems severe to me. I would think justice is more like getting fired, fined, and community service rather than prison.

thayne 5y ago

I would hope that there are stronger protections against such abuses of authorization. What if a police officer (or system administrator, etc.) sold information about a potential victim to a criminal that resulted in physical or financial harm to said victim?

the_pwner224 5y ago
That is / should be illegal on its own, the fact that the information was obtained through a computer system instead of a paper file doesn't change anything in your example.

secothroa 5y ago

>and he was fully authorized to use them This line is the crux, and the problem is that "authorized" means subtle, yet critically important, different things to different people. The officer was surely "authorized" in the sense that he had technical authorization to log into the system and accomplish the task. But in the sense that "authorization" is defined by more than just technical controls, and also has to do with many dynamic situations that technical controls can't often restrict (or just aren't in place), it doesn't sound like was "authorized". Think of walking into a restaurant and they have a sign that says "Employees Only Behind Counter". Even if there was no technical/physical control preventing you from going behind the counter (eg there was no locked door or anything like that), I think it would still be understood that you as a customer do not have "authorization" to go back there. In my experience as a security consultant, my technically-minded clients typically think of "authorization" as the first way, defined by technical controls and thinking that lack of technical controls in a system means they have carte blanche to do whatever they want with that system. But my experience with anyone outside of tech is that they don't think of it that way at all, and that just because you have the physical/technical ability to do something does not make it okay to do that. "Authorization" is an overloaded term and the CFAA suffer for it, but personally I do not think an average person would think the officer was "authorized" to do what he did, even if he did have the technical access to do it. The points about "average employees technically violating the CFAA by doing stuff like reading the news on their work laptop" are valid concerns and I think they need to be resolved, but I think that is a completely different concern than someone like this officer abusing their access for legitimately bad acts.

Natsu 5y ago
You're right about a lot of that, but there are huge problems with making mere policy violations into federal felonies. We want to stop people from hacking stuff, but at the same time, we can't do that by giving every random company the power to make things into federal felonies via their own complex and often-ignored rules. I posted up thread too, but my own personal view is that unauthorized access should hinge on whether the person used deception to obtain access. That provides a clear separation between lawful and unlawful conduct without giving private parties the power to define new felonies. With computers, I don't think that the proverbial "employees only" sign on a load of private data means anything and the incentive should be on the business to provide a proper access control there. Meanwhile, if they add a guard who asks "are you an employee?" and you lie to them to get access, I would say you're unauthorized. That gives us some semblance of mens rea while not going to far in any direction, I believe.

pessimizer 5y ago

I'm absolutely fine with him being charged with a felony, as he is a corrupt government official, I just don't think that felony should be hacking.