3 ms·
hmm, not really my area. This coverage of van buren seems to show the court trying to make 'authorization' agree in meaning in different parts of (a)(2)? https
by awinter-py 5y ago
hmm, not really my area. This coverage of van buren seems to show the court trying to make 'authorization' agree in meaning in different parts of (a)(2)?
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-ends-long-running-circuit-split-over-cfaa-exceeds-authorized-access https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-ends-long...
- rsstack 5y agoThis incident has nothing to do with (a)(2) as Marak didn't _access_ any system. The only sections violated are (a)(5) (_knowingly damaging_ a system) and, arguably, (a)(7) (extortion). (a)(7) is a lot harder to argue though as his extortion attempt doesn't have a named target or an explicit demand and is generally... lame. Edit: Note that I'm seeing this the same as a virus, not the same as a data-extraction hack.