The American Republic

In a stunning blow to Obama, Holder & Co., the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that violating an employer’s (read that: “Master’s”) computer policy cannot be prosecuted as hacking.

In the never-ending quest of the power-addicted to extend the limits of power, the United States (government; a thing, not a place) has interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — enacted in 1984 by lawyers in Congress to make it easier for lawyers in the Executive Branch to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality — to include activities such as violating a website’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy.

So far, this law has been misused to prosecute the alleged aiding and abetting of fellow workers to supply information they were authorized to access but forbidden to divulge (the case just overturned); taking computer files [an employee was] authorized to access and using them in a manner prohibited by the company (last years 9^th Circuit case – they ruled the other way); accessing an employers’ computers for disloyal purposes (another 9^th Circuit case, overturned, while a similar 7^th Circuit conviction was upheld). 

The same theory was used to get hacking convictions for two New Jersey men who used computer scripts to buy and scalp concert tickets even though they paid for them.

Conspiracy to violate the CFAA by “exceeding authorized access” to a computer system is one of the charges the government is considering against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and  against Bradley Manning for allegedly exceeding his authorized access of a government computer and providing files to secret-spilling site WikiLeaks (which should give one an idea of how weak the government’s case against PFC Manning really is).

In the most outrageous case to date, a publicity-seeking federal prosecutor in Los Angeles criminally charged a teenager in Missouri for a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl (who later committed suicide) theorizing that it violated MySpace’s terms of service, and was the legal equivalent of hacking. A federal judge tossed the guilty verdicts.

read full article here