Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is the sort of broadly worded criminal statute which gives white-collar prosecutors considerable power — and makes defense counsel and judges uneasy. The law prohibits obtaining information by "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access." Computer hacking — "access[ing] a computer without authorization" — clearly violates the law. But the meaning of the other operative words, "or exceed[ing] authorized access," is not so clear.
The different ways of interpreting the statute have led to a split in the Courts of Appeals. Four circuits have read the statute broadly: An individual "exceeds authorized access" when she accesses a computer and obtains information for an improper purpose, even if the person's access to the information is authorized. Four other circuits have read the statute narrowly: An individual "exceeds authorized access" only if she obtains information that she is not allowed to access, even if the purpose is improper. In practical terms, if a company Human Resources officer peeks at sensitive information out of idle curiosity, not because of work, would that be a crime because of the improper purpose, or would it not be a crime because the HR officer had the authority to review personnel files?
The meaning of "exceeds authorized access" will soon be taken up by the Supreme Court in United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 2020 WL 190655 (Mem.) (U.S. April 20, 2020). Oral argument was scheduled for Nov. 30, 2020. This article describes the circuit split and explore different methods used by appellate courts to interpret the operative words of the CFAA. In Van Buren, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity once more to articulate its approach to interpreting white-collar criminal statutes.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.