4 ms·

§1030(a)(1) through §1030(a)(7) are seven separate crimes. A person can commit one or two or all seven of them. They are separate. Read the government manual

§1030(a)(1) through §1030(a)(7) are seven separate crimes. A person can commit one or two or all seven of them. They are separate. Read the government manual: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf You're filling this whole thread with disinformation. Stop it.

tptacek 14y ago
I listed all seven of them downthread before you wrote this comment. Which of them applies to a blog post? Please be specific. You can feel free to point to the part of the DOJ manual that rebuts me, too.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The CFAA conviction referred to here (the Lori Drew case, also mentioned in the DOJ manual) was overturned.
- jfoutz 14y ago
  My apologies. My pretending to be a lawyer via google is stupid. 1030(a)(2)(c) seems really terrifying, obviously there is formal language in the text "Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization and thereby obtains - (C) information from any protected computer; obviously includes formal language that means something i don't understand.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I'm not a lawyer either, for what it's worth ('rprasad is). "Protected computer" is a term defined later in the CFAA.
- macchina 14y ago
  He actually does have a point based on the text. 1030(a)(2)(C) Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Under the statute, a "protected computer" generally means any computer connected to the internet. Also, based on the legislative history, "obtains information" has been read to mean "merely observing" information. The only issue is "without authorization." Based on its plain meaning, the law could mean that you need affirmative authorization to access any website. Obviously, that's a real stretch, but there was a case decided by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals [1] that held a company liable for using a web scraper - where the court said the defendants exceeded authorized access based on the website's boilerplate copyright notice. [1]http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/577/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-explorica-inc http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/577/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-ex...
  - Tloewald 14y ago
    IANAl but putting up a website implies granting certain kinds of access. This is common knowledge and common practice. The foundation of Common Law (the basis of our legal system) is "what would a reasonable man do?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person You can't parse sentences out of context and apply programmer logic to them, that's not how laws work.
    - macchina 14y ago
      The federal government has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce. Federal law generally overrides common law to the extent its unambiguous. It's true that Judge Kozinski in the 9th Circuit said he would not "apply a badly drafted piece of legislation to lead to [an] absurd result." But the issue is not cut and dry. Kozinski essentially acknowledged he was interpreting the statute in a manner possibly at odds with its very language. These courts get reversed all the time (over 70% of their cases) - and other circuits have read the law more narrowly. And the government itself supports a narrow reading of the law. OP's article is over the top. My point is, the "authorization" part of the law appears extremely broad and as the DOJ puts it: "the case law on this issue is muddy."

tptacek 14y ago

I listed all seven of them downthread before you wrote this comment. Which of them applies to a blog post? Please be specific. You can feel free to point to the part of the DOJ manual that rebuts me, too.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- tptacek 14y ago
  The CFAA conviction referred to here (the Lori Drew case, also mentioned in the DOJ manual) was overturned.
jfoutz 14y ago
My apologies. My pretending to be a lawyer via google is stupid. 1030(a)(2)(c) seems really terrifying, obviously there is formal language in the text "Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization and thereby obtains - (C) information from any protected computer; obviously includes formal language that means something i don't understand.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I'm not a lawyer either, for what it's worth ('rprasad is). "Protected computer" is a term defined later in the CFAA.
macchina 14y ago
He actually does have a point based on the text. 1030(a)(2)(C) Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Under the statute, a "protected computer" generally means any computer connected to the internet. Also, based on the legislative history, "obtains information" has been read to mean "merely observing" information. The only issue is "without authorization." Based on its plain meaning, the law could mean that you need affirmative authorization to access any website. Obviously, that's a real stretch, but there was a case decided by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals [1] that held a company liable for using a web scraper - where the court said the defendants exceeded authorized access based on the website's boilerplate copyright notice. [1]http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/577/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-explorica-inc http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/577/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-ex...
- Tloewald 14y ago
  IANAl but putting up a website implies granting certain kinds of access. This is common knowledge and common practice. The foundation of Common Law (the basis of our legal system) is "what would a reasonable man do?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person You can't parse sentences out of context and apply programmer logic to them, that's not how laws work.
  - macchina 14y ago
    The federal government has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce. Federal law generally overrides common law to the extent its unambiguous. It's true that Judge Kozinski in the 9th Circuit said he would not "apply a badly drafted piece of legislation to lead to [an] absurd result." But the issue is not cut and dry. Kozinski essentially acknowledged he was interpreting the statute in a manner possibly at odds with its very language. These courts get reversed all the time (over 70% of their cases) - and other circuits have read the law more narrowly. And the government itself supports a narrow reading of the law. OP's article is over the top. My point is, the "authorization" part of the law appears extremely broad and as the DOJ puts it: "the case law on this issue is muddy."