2 ms·

If ruled the other way then basically everyone who works a desk job would be breaking the CFAA daily. Let me explain. If an employer only allowed employees to

If ruled the other way then basically everyone who works a desk job would be breaking the CFAA daily. Let me explain. If an employer only allowed employees to use their work computers for work (I assume most do, at least officially) as soon as an employee does anything personal on it (checks FB, checks HN, etc) even if on lunch break, they have exceeded their authorization, broken the law under the CFAA, and face up to 10 years in prison.

WillPostForFood 5y ago
That's incorrect. If you read the full statute, it has to be unauthorized access combined with some sort of theft of data, or access of governmental records. It wouldn't apply to browsing public sites. The specific subsection that was applied to Can Buren lays out three cases. Unauthorized access plus obtaining: (A)information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); (B)information from any department or agency of the United States; or (C)information from any protected computer;
- rurabe 5y ago
  Thanks for posting this, I didn't realize there was a such a tangle of definitions as to what was accessed. That said, doesn't this pretty much include anything on the web? (a)Whoever— (2)intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C)information from any protected computer; where a "protected computer" is: (e)As used in this section— (2) the term “protected computer” means a computer— (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication seems like that would catch an awful lot of webservers.

2 ms·

If ruled the other way then basically everyone who works a desk job would be breaking the CFAA daily. Let me explain. If an employer only allowed employees to

by Miner49er 5y ago

WillPostForFood 5y ago
That's incorrect. If you read the full statute, it has to be unauthorized access combined with some sort of theft of data, or access of governmental records. It wouldn't apply to browsing public sites. The specific subsection that was applied to Can Buren lays out three cases. Unauthorized access plus obtaining: (A)information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); (B)information from any department or agency of the United States; or (C)information from any protected computer;
- rurabe 5y ago
  Thanks for posting this, I didn't realize there was a such a tangle of definitions as to what was accessed. That said, doesn't this pretty much include anything on the web? (a)Whoever— (2)intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C)information from any protected computer; where a "protected computer" is: (e)As used in this section— (2) the term “protected computer” means a computer— (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication seems like that would catch an awful lot of webservers.