3 ms·

Oof. I don't like this decision, and surprised to see the breadth of agreement from the Court. When you grant a person access to a system (digital or physical),

Oof. I don't like this decision, and surprised to see the breadth of agreement from the Court. When you grant a person access to a system (digital or physical), it's for a specific purpose. Violating that purpose should be a criminal act. If I give a plumber my house key to come in and fix my sink, and he goes and he opens up my computer and looks at my files, that should be a crime. If I grant a Geek Squadder access to my computer to get a virus off my computer, and he looks at my private photos except to the extent necessary to do the job I hired him to do, that should be a crime. One could always say "Congress can remedy this with legislation" but that body has become fully dysfunctional so we all know that won't happen.

J5892 5y ago
Yes, it likely should be a criminal act, and it may even be covered by one. But it should not be a violation of the CFAA. In your Geek Squadder case, you gave him access to the computer. He may have used that access improperly, but he did not increase his access through any illicit means. It is likely a crime, but not one that should be covered by the CFAA. Your plumber case is a much different scenario. Also definitely a crime, but you did not grant him access to the machine. So it's possible that the CFAA should cover that, but I don't have the knowledge required to answer that with any amount of certainty.