2 ms·
Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times and against defined c
by rosser 14y ago
Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times and against defined company policy? You've "exceeded authorized access".
Do you have specific knowledge of someone possessing controlled substances in a jurisdiction or situation where they're forbidden (e.g., someone in a medical marijuana state who possesses even misdemeanor amounts of pot but doesn't have official medical sanction for its use, or anyone possessing any amount in a "dry" state)? Obstruction of justice.
Have you ever taken a "mental health day" and called in sick when you aren't actually sick? You've defrauded your employer.
These are all acts specifically described as illegal by the relevant statute.
EDIT: clarifying language on "exceeding authorized access" case.
- snowwrestler 14y ago> Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times? You've "exceeded authorized access". Not true: http://www.pcworld.com/article/253581/court_violating_work_computeruse_policies_not_a_crime.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/253581/court_violating_work_c...
- rosser 14y agoI don't think that ruling means what you think it means. The court adopted this interpretation and expanded its scope, ruling that an employee "exceeds authorized access" under the CFAA when they use a computer in way that violates an employer's access restrictions... They decided that, as a logical extension of this finding, the question of whether an employee "exceeds authorized access" is likewise determined by the employer's actions, including (but not limited to) the promulgation of computer use restrictions. Since Korn/Ferry indeed had such computer use restrictions, which the defendants violated when they accessed the executive database for fraudulent purposes, the Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the district court to reinstate the five counts under Section (a)(4). [1] If your employer says you can't browse Facebook or Hacker News with your work computer, and you do, you're "exceeding authorized access". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal
- snowwrestler 14y ago"The result of the hearing was published April 10th 2012 and states that the court chose a narrow interpretation of the CFAA, holding that the phrase “exceeds authorized access” in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions.[9]"