Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The only computers, in theory, covered by the CFAA are defined as "protected computers".They are defined under section to mean a computer: . exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or any computer, when the conduct constituting the offense affects the computer's use by or for the financial institution or the government; or
Computer fraud is the use of computers, the Internet, Internet devices, and Internet services to defraud people or organizations of resources. [1] In the United States, computer fraud is specifically proscribed by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which criminalizes computer-related acts under federal jurisdiction and directly combats the insufficiencies of existing laws.
Years after the CFAA was put into law, many have become uncomfortable with the law's language because of the drastic difference between today's technology and the technology of the 1980s. Legal scholars such as Orin Kerr and Tiffany Curtis have expressed such concerns. In one of Curtis's essays, "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Enforcement: Cruel ...
United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) [1] was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision dealing with the scope of criminal prosecutions of former employees under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
The exact definition of "exceeds authorized access" is not clear and created a 4–3 circuit split of cases at the Circuit Courts. [2] In the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, the courts upheld a broad view of the statement, that accessing a computer with authorization but for an improper purpose is a violation of the CFAA.
United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009), [1] was an American federal criminal case in which the U.S. government charged Lori Drew with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) over her alleged cyberbullying of her 13-year-old neighbor, Megan Meier, who had died of suicide.
Lee v. PMSI, Inc., No. 10-2094 (M.D. Florida January 13, 2011), [1] was a case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida about whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) makes it illegal for an employee to violate an employer's acceptable use policy.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that John exceeded authorized access to a protected computer within the meaning of CFAA. The court's reasoning was that John knew that the purpose for which she was accessing the information in a Citigroup computer system both violated the employer's internal policies and was a part of an illegal scheme. [1]