Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
In a recent decision written by Judge Richard Posner, The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) may be used to bring a private cause of action against a former employee who permanently erased confidential data from his company-issued laptop before returning it to the company. International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin, (Slip Op.) No. 05-1522 (7th Cir. March 8, 2006). In so holding, the Seventh Circuit has joined the current tide of federal courts that have permitted companies to use the CFAA as a means with which to defend themselves against the malicious and competitive acts of departing employees.
Since passing the CFAA in 1984 to criminalize 'classic' attacks on government computer databases by hackers, Congress has expanded its scope to include a private right of action covering not only government-owned computers, but also 'protected computers' used in interstate commerce. (According to the CFAA's express terms, a 'protected computer' is defined as one that 'is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the Untied States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.' 18 U.S.C. ' 1030(e)(2)(B).) As a result, individuals and companies may now bring civil claims alleging violations of the CFAA to seek compensatory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief.
The CFAA's scope has also been extended beyond computer hacking activities to encompass all manner of sins. Plaintiffs have sued individuals under the CFAA for placing 'cookies' on a business's computers in order to gather personal and confidential information, see, eg, In re Doubleclick Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), for infecting a business's e-mail network with unsolicited commercial bulk e-mails (ie, 'spam'); America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1267 (D. Iowa 2000) and for taking confidential and proprietary information from a former employer's computers for delivery to their new employers, see, eg, Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?