3 ms·

In this case, the defendant is charged with 1030(a)(4), which is fraud, and the government therefore has to prove fraud. The defendant could also have been cha

In this case, the defendant is charged with 1030(a)(4), which is fraud, and the government therefore has to prove fraud. The defendant could also have been charged - in some other case - with 1030(a)(2), which is obtaining information from any protected computer without access. In that case, the government would not have to prove fraud.

tptacek 14y ago
A blog is not a protected computer, which is a term with a definition in the law --- it's one that used by financial institutions, by the US government, or that affects interstate commerce. Again: not a blog. Furthermore, regardless of whether the prosecution charges a crime that requires intent to commit fraud --- for instance, in the unlikely event that they tried to spin a yarn about a blog affecting interstate commerce --- CFAA crimes aren't strict liability. They must prove intent to exceed authorization.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  "affects interstate commerce" is anything, as has been shown time and time again by the Federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn and subsequent cases: producing a product on your own, and thereby not engaging in commerce, is considered commerce.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    As someone who thinks Wickard was a gross expansion of power, that doesn't mean that it applies in CFAA cases. (Also, this year's PPACA ruling detoothed the commerce clause's power. How much it did that is to be determined.)
- jahewson 14y ago
  If you have AdWords on your blog, you're doing interstate commerce.
  - chii 14y ago
    i think you do not even require adwords, because you can construe that interstate commerce happened if the traffic of the website is routed from your web server from one state, to another, and that you paid for the traffic from your web server!
- jellicle 14y ago
  > A blog is not a protected computer, which is a term with a definition in the law --- it's one that used by financial institutions, by the US government, or that affects interstate commerce. Again: not a blog. That is flatly and totally wrong. Any computer connected to the internet is a "protected computer" for the purposes of this statute: full stop, end of story. Additionally, some computers not connected to the internet are protected computers. It's possible that a blog on an intranet machine that is absolutely not accessible to the outside world could be argued not to be a "protected computer". Any blog routable from the outside world absolutely is. Every blog in the world accessible from the internet is in fact being run on a "protected computer". Accessing any of these machines without authorization or exceeding authorization can in fact be charged as a federal misdemeanor. This is not arguable. It's exactly what the statute says, it's exactly what the DOJ says, it's exactly what every court to consider the issue has said. For example, here's a direct quote from one case: "the latter two elements of the section 1030(a)(2)(C) crime [obtaining information from a protected computer] will always be met when an individual using a computer contacts or communicates with an Internet website". Note the word ALWAYS. All that remains to be proven is that you weren't drunk or otherwise not in control of your faculties, and that you did it without authorization or exceeding authorization. People take issue with me calling you a knucklehead. But you are making statements that anyone with a cursory knowledge of the law would know to be false, and you are making them repeatedly and refusing to educate yourself about it or to investigate in any way or to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

tptacek 14y ago

A blog is not a protected computer, which is a term with a definition in the law --- it's one that used by financial institutions, by the US government, or that affects interstate commerce. Again: not a blog. Furthermore, regardless of whether the prosecution charges a crime that requires intent to commit fraud --- for instance, in the unlikely event that they tried to spin a yarn about a blog affecting interstate commerce --- CFAA crimes aren't strict liability. They must prove intent to exceed authorization.

trhtrsh 14y ago
"affects interstate commerce" is anything, as has been shown time and time again by the Federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn and subsequent cases: producing a product on your own, and thereby not engaging in commerce, is considered commerce.
- danielweber 14y ago
  As someone who thinks Wickard was a gross expansion of power, that doesn't mean that it applies in CFAA cases. (Also, this year's PPACA ruling detoothed the commerce clause's power. How much it did that is to be determined.)
jahewson 14y ago
If you have AdWords on your blog, you're doing interstate commerce.
- chii 14y ago
  i think you do not even require adwords, because you can construe that interstate commerce happened if the traffic of the website is routed from your web server from one state, to another, and that you paid for the traffic from your web server!
jellicle 14y ago
> A blog is not a protected computer, which is a term with a definition in the law --- it's one that used by financial institutions, by the US government, or that affects interstate commerce. Again: not a blog. That is flatly and totally wrong. Any computer connected to the internet is a "protected computer" for the purposes of this statute: full stop, end of story. Additionally, some computers not connected to the internet are protected computers. It's possible that a blog on an intranet machine that is absolutely not accessible to the outside world could be argued not to be a "protected computer". Any blog routable from the outside world absolutely is. Every blog in the world accessible from the internet is in fact being run on a "protected computer". Accessing any of these machines without authorization or exceeding authorization can in fact be charged as a federal misdemeanor. This is not arguable. It's exactly what the statute says, it's exactly what the DOJ says, it's exactly what every court to consider the issue has said. For example, here's a direct quote from one case: "the latter two elements of the section 1030(a)(2)(C) crime [obtaining information from a protected computer] will always be met when an individual using a computer contacts or communicates with an Internet website". Note the word ALWAYS. All that remains to be proven is that you weren't drunk or otherwise not in control of your faculties, and that you did it without authorization or exceeding authorization. People take issue with me calling you a knucklehead. But you are making statements that anyone with a cursory knowledge of the law would know to be false, and you are making them repeatedly and refusing to educate yourself about it or to investigate in any way or to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.