- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS narrows computer fraud statute in an unusual coalition in majority (6-3) decision
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:05 pm
quote:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the government’s broad interpretation of a federal law that makes it a crime to “exceed authorized access” on a computer. By a vote of 6-3 with an ideologically scrambled line-up, the court overturned the conviction of a Georgia police officer who searched an official police database for personal purposes. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion.
quote:So Breyer being the senior member on the majority assigned the majority opinion to ACB. Interesting.
The six-justice majority consisted of three conservatives (Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett) and the court’s three liberals (Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
SCOTUS Blog
This post was edited on 6/3/21 at 1:07 pm
3
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:07 pm to TideCPA
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:10 pm to TideCPA
pr0n?
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:12 pm to TideCPA
quote:
The case, Van Buren v. United States, was the Supreme Court’s first serious look at the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. It was an important one because the government in recent years has been applying the law quite broadly, arguing that users “exceed unauthorized access” (and thus face federal criminal liability) whenever they use information from a computer for an impermissible reason. In this case, for example, the police officer, Nathan Van Buren, lawfully accessed computerized license-plate records, but his use of the information for a private purpose led to the federal criminal prosecution that the court has now rejected.
The relevant provision of the CFAA, Barrett wrote, “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.”
Interesting. I haven't read the case but this summary seems to indicate the officer had access to the data already, but the reason he was accessing it wasn't initially for an investigation (but it led to one).
This post was edited on 6/3/21 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:16 pm to Jimmy2shoes
quote:No, a cop took a bribe in an FBI sting and used his access to the license plate database to provide information to the informant. SCOTUS has ruled that he was incorrectly charged under the CFAA because the statute only covers those who gain unauthorized access (i.e. hackers), not those who have access and use it inappropriately.
pr0n?
Under the government's broad interpretation, someone using a company computer to check Facebook could in theory fall under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by "exceeding unauthorized access".
This post was edited on 6/3/21 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:29 pm to TideCPA
quote:
No, a cop took a bribe in an FBI sting and used his access to the license plate database to provide information to the informant. SCOTUS has ruled that he was incorrectly charged under the CFAA because the statute only covers those who gain unauthorized access (i.e. hackers), not those who have access and use it inappropriately.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted on 6/3/21 at 1:39 pm to TideCPA
quote:
No, a cop took a bribe in an FBI sting and used his access to the license plate database to provide information to the informant. SCOTUS has ruled that he was incorrectly charged under the CFAA because the statute only covers those who gain unauthorized access (i.e. hackers), not those who have access and use it inappropriately.
Under the government's broad interpretation, someone using a company computer to check Facebook could in theory fall under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by "exceeding unauthorized access".
This is definitely the right ruling. You can't use a broad interpretation to create crimes where none exist. If someone commits a crime using the information obtained then you charge them for THAT crime and not accessing data they were approved for.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News