Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Broadened the definition of "protected computer" in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) to the full extent of Congress's commerce power by including those computers used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication; and; Provided a mechanism for civil and criminal forfeiture of property used in or derived from section 1030 violations.
Protected computers is a term used in Title 18, Section 1030 of the United States Code, (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) which prohibits a number of different kinds of conduct, generally involving unauthorized access to, or damage to the data stored on, "protected computers".
The indictment charged both Riggs and Neidorf with seven violations of federal statutes: counts 1 and 2 alleged violations of 18 USC § 1343 [6] , counts 3 and 4 alleged violations of 18 USC § 2314 [7] (interstate transportation of stolen property), and counts 5-7 alleged violations of 18 USC § 1030 [8] (computer fraud and abuse).
Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to ensure that any individual convicted of a violation of section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, can be subjected to appropriate penalties, without regard to any mandatory ...
In United States v.John, 597 F.3d 263 (2010) [1] United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit interpreted the term "exceeds authorized access" in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(6) [2] and concluded that access to a computer may be exceeded if the purposes for which access has been given are exceeded.
In 1989, Morris was indicted for violating United States Code Title 18 (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). [1] He was the first person to be indicted under this act. In December 1990, he was sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, and a fine of $10,050 plus the costs of his supervision.
"In essence, this money has been stolen from all of us for all these years," said an 84-year-old woman whose late husband's Social Security benefits were slashed. "It's not fair."
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the government’s argument failed to sufficiently meet the “exceeding authorized access” requirement of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) and granted the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. [1] [2] This case is noteworthy because it followed the precedent established by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United ...