In what way is that ruling correct?
Accessed computers without authorization and did so for money.
In what way is that ruling correct?
Accessed computers without authorization and did so for money.
From the article:
The decision itself concerns a police officer who ran a license plate for money. The question was whether that act constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The Court held that it did not.
I didn't read enough into the case to know why they ruled the way they did.
He was authorized to use that computer. Authorized to run plates.
I agree with this ruling. He wasn't some hacker accessing things he shouldn't.
He was authorized to use that computer. Authorized to run plates.
Yeah, for police business. He did it for cash, though.
The Court is saving the asses of everyone using a company computer or cellphone.
The Gov wants to interpret it in the broadest way possible. For example, most employers will state that you can only use your work phone for work related things. So if you looked up a pie recipe with your work phone or computer, you would have broken the CFAA. The Gov's interpretation is absolutely mental.
The CFAA covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access does not extend. It does not cover those who, like Van Buren, have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them.
People have been successfully prosecuted for accessing work materials without authorization.
Yes, because that's illegal and that judgement doesn't change that.
(post is archived)