Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
SCOTUS Narrowly Interprets CFAA to Avoid Criminalizing 'Commonplace Computer Activity'
On June 3, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion in Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, resolving the circuit split regarding what it means to "exceed[] authorization" for purposes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. §1030 et seq. The Court held that only those who obtain information from particular areas of the computer which they are not authorized to access can be said to "exceed authorization," and the statute does not — as the government had argued — cover behavior, like Van Buren's, where a person accesses information which he is authorized to access but does so for improper purposes. This was a long-awaited decision interpreting the CFAA, which has become an important statute in both criminal and civil enforcement relating to computer crime and hacking.
Background
The CFAA was passed in 1986 as a targeted measure to combat a fairly circumscribed category of "computer trespassing" crimes. At that time, computer usage did not remotely resemble what it does today — in 1989, for example, about 15% of American households owned a personal computer and most people had never heard of the Internet. Despite significant changes in technology and an explosion in the use of electronic data since that time, many of the CFAA's provisions have not changed. Nevertheless, in recent years it has become the primary federal law used to prosecute hackers, including in a number of high-profile cases such as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz (co-founder of Reddit), Gilberto Valle (the "Cannibal Cop"), and Lori Drew (whose MySpace hoax was blamed for the suicide of a 13-year-old neighbor).
This premium content is locked for Cybersecurity Law & Strategy 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.