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.
This premium content is locked for Employment Law Strategist 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.