<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/17/2013 07:42 PM, Rick Moen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130118004257.GD3216@linuxmafia.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Quoting Ruben Safir (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ruben@mrbrklyn.com">ruben@mrbrklyn.com</a>):
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">He is not the only legal opinion and there are many who disagree.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm underwhelmed by your data. (In short, you are posting bullshit.)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swartz">http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swartz</a><br>
<br>
<br>
also<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/fourth_circuit/2012/07/fourth-circuit-refuses-to-apply-cfaa-to-employee-data-breach.html">http://blogs.findlaw.com/fourth_circuit/2012/07/fourth-circuit-refuses-to-apply-cfaa-to-employee-data-breach.html</a><br>
<br>
"This week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that
decision.
<p>The CFAA is primarily a criminal statute <a title="A.V. ex rel.
Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC"
href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1248473.html">designed
to combat hacking</a>. Nevertheless, it permits a private party
"who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of [the
statute]" to bring a civil action "to obtain compensatory damages
and injunctive relief or other equitable relief." Although proof
of at least one of five additional factors is necessary to
maintain a civil action, a violation of any of the statute's
provisions exposes the offender to both civil and criminal
liability.</p>
<p>A person can be liable under the CFAA if he:</p>
<ol>
<li>Intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or
exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains ... information
from any protected computer. </li>
<li>Knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected
computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access,
and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and
obtains anything of value.</li>
<li>Intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly
causes damage, or causes damage and loss.</li>
</ol>
<p>Here, WEC alleged that Miller and Kelley violated the Act because
they were not permitted to download confidential and proprietary
information to a personal computer under WEC's policies, and they
breached their fiduciary duties by doing so. Based on that breach,
they either lost all authorization to access the confidential
information or exceeded their authorization. </p>
<p>WEC sought to hold Arc liable because it claimed that Miller and
Kelley undertook this conduct as Arc's agents.</p>
<p>The defendants moved for a 12(b)(6) dismissal, and the district
court held that WEC failed to state a claim for which the CFAA
provided relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court, noting that Miller and Kelley didn't hack WEC's
system. (Remember, the CFAA was created to combat hacking, not an
employee data breach.)</p>
<p>Judge Henry Floyd, writing for the three-judge panel, said, "We
are unwilling to contravene Congress's intent by transforming a
statute meant to target hackers into a vehicle for imputing
liability to workers who access computers or information in bad
faith, or who disregard a use policy. Providing such recourse not
only is unnecessary, given that other legal remedies exist for
these grievances, but also is violative of the Supreme Court's
counsel to <a title="US v. Lanier"
href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/520/259.html">construe
criminal statutes strictly</a>.""<br>
</p>
<p><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2012/08/doj-wont-ask-for-supreme-court-review-of-cfaa-hacking-decision.html">http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2012/08/doj-wont-ask-for-supreme-court-review-of-cfaa-hacking-decision.html</a><br>
</p>
<p>"<br>
</p>
<div class="asset-body">
<p>In April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals <a title="Ninth
Circuit Saves Distracted Workers from Federal Prosecution"
href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2012/04/ninth-circuit-saves-distracted-workers-from-federal-prosecution.html">dismissed
a federal hacking charge</a> against a California man, finding
that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which outlaws
computer use that “exceeds authorized access,” was inapplicable
to the case. For months, we’ve wondered whether the Justice
Department would appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>This week, we got our answer. The <a title="DOJ Won't Ask
Supreme Court to Review Hacking Case"
href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/computer-fraud-supreme-court/"
target="_blank">DOJ has decided not to petition for Supreme
Court review</a>, reports <em>Wired</em>."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/aaron_swartzs_crime_and_the_bu.html">http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/aaron_swartzs_crime_and_the_bu.html</a><br>
from Harvard Business School<br>
</p>
<p><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/aaron_swartz_suicide_prosecutors_have_too_much_power_to_charge_and_intimidate.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/aaron_swartz_suicide_prosecutors_have_too_much_power_to_charge_and_intimidate.html</a></p>
</div>
<br>
The Author wrote for Yale Law review:<br>
<br>
"Bazelon was raised in Philadelphia and attended <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germantown_Friends_School"
title="Germantown Friends School">Germantown Friends School</a>.<sup
id="cite_ref-27" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-27"><span>[</span>27<span>]</span></a></sup>
She graduated from <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_College" title="Yale
College">Yale College</a> in 1993 and from <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_School" title="Yale
Law School">Yale Law School</a> in 2000 and was an editor of the <i><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_Journal" title="Yale
Law Journal">Yale Law Journal</a></i>.<sup id="cite_ref-yal_1-3"
class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-yal-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup>
She was selected for and participated in the Dorot Fellowship in
Israel from 1993-94.<sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-28"><span>[</span>28<span>]</span></a></sup>
After law school she worked as a <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_clerk" title="Law clerk">law
clerk</a> for Judge <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Lipez" title="Kermit
Lipez">Kermit Lipez</a> of the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit"
title="United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit">United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit</a>.
<p>Bazelon is the granddaughter of <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Bazelon"
title="David L. Bazelon">David L. Bazelon</a>, formerly a judge
on the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit"
title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit">United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-inbrief_29-0"
class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-inbrief-29"><span>[</span>29<span>]</span></a></sup>
and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin" title="Cousin">second
cousin twice removed</a> of feminist <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Friedan" title="Betty
Friedan">Betty Friedan</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-30"
class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-30"><span>[</span>30<span>]</span></a></sup>
She lives in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven"
title="New Haven" class="mw-redirect">New Haven</a>, <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut"
title="Connecticut">Connecticut</a> with her husband, Paul
Sabin, an assistant professor of history at Yale, and their sons,
Eli and Simon.<sup id="cite_ref-brand_5-1" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-brand-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-31" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-31"><span>[</span>31<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-32" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-32"><span>[</span>32<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-33" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-33"><span>[</span>33<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-34" class="reference"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon#cite_note-34"><span>[</span>34<span>]</span></a>"
~~wikipedia</sup></p>
<p><sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference"><br>
</sup></p>
<p><sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference">From the LA Times:<br>
</sup></p>
<p><sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-0113-aaron-swartz-20130113,0,5232490.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-0113-aaron-swartz-20130113,0,5232490.story</a><br>
</sup></p>
<p><sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference">"</sup>Some legal experts
believe the charges are unfounded since Swartz had been a
university fellow, which gave him the right to access the
articles."<br>
</p>
<p>They could be lieing, of course since there is no source quoted.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This is also worth a review and discusses both the legal and the
ethical issues<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/534.full">http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/534.full</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/the-overzealous-prosecution-of-aaron-swartz.html">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/the-overzealous-prosecution-of-aaron-swartz.html</a><br>
By Lawyer <a
href="http://www.bloomberg.com/view/bios/stephen-carter/">Stephen
L Carter</a>:<br>
<br>
Stephen L. Carter is a professor of law at Yale, where he teaches
courses on contracts, professional responsibility,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
so...<br>
<br>
While Kerr sat down and gave a long and detail writing of his
analysis, his is not a whole accepted opinion.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130118004257.GD3216@linuxmafia.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Where was there a applicable case like this? This case is unique, FWIW
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Reference was to all other past cases under 18 U.S.C. 1343 (wire fraud),
18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4) (computer fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) and 18
U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii) (unauthorised access), and 18 U.S.C.
1030(a)(5)(B) and 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) & (VI) (computer damage).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which one involves a political activist?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130118004257.GD3216@linuxmafia.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I'm sure Swartz's case was 'unique' in many ways, but none of them
relevant to the question.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That would be your opinion. None involve the taking of data from an
opened accessed computer by a political activist who never even
released the papers.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130118004257.GD3216@linuxmafia.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Prosecution of the law and public opinion are not ever seperate issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Are you comprehensively misreading what I said deliberately, or is it
accidental?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
HAH - am I now your chew toy?!?<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>