secothroa

4 ms·

1.
by secothroa 5y ago
>His reasons for accessing the data were wrong This, by definition, makes his access unauthorized. That's the point. "Authorization" is more than just technical controls. He was not authorized to access the data for this
2.
by secothroa 5y ago
>is that unauthorized access? Yes. And SCOTUS's problem is that they think the punishment for visiting facebook at work shouldn't be the same as the punishment for stealing company records - and that's fine, and of course
3.
by secothroa 5y ago
>Put another way, he didn't work around any computer controls to get at the information. That's irrelevant. You can do unauthorized things without having to "work around" controls. >He clearly did not hack into the
4.
by secothroa 5y ago
It isn't just about access to the system, but access to the data as well, and he accessed data that he was not authorized to access. That is "exceeding authorized access". - Logging onto the system: officer has technical acce
5.
by secothroa 5y ago
CFAA stands for "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act". The entire purpose of the law is that is addresses that type of fraud.
6.
by secothroa 5y ago
Policies, by definition, are ways by which authorization rules are enforced. If the officer violated a policy, they also by definition violated their authorizations. >The idea that you could be authorized, but suddenly not They were neve
7.
by secothroa 5y ago
>and he was fully authorized to use them This line is the crux, and the problem is that "authorized" means subtle, yet critically important, different things to different people. The officer was surely "authorized" in