Supreme Court Narrows Scope of U.S. Computer-Hacking Law

[mountaineer]

Supreme Court Narrows Scope of U.S. Computer-Hacking Law
By Greg Stohr
June 3, 2021, 10:07 AM EDT Updated on June 3, 2021, 10:43 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the reach of a federal computer-hacking law, overturning the conviction of a Georgia police sergeant who sold information from a confidential law-enforcement database to an FBI informant.

The justices, voting 6-3, said the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act doesn’t apply when an authorized user of a database uses the information for an unauthorized purpose. The ruling is a victory for Nathan Van Buren, a former police sergeant in Cumming, Georgia, who had been sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Writing for the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an interpretation that had been pressed by former President Donald Trump’s administration, saying its approach would have turned millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals for violating computer-use policies.

“The government’s interpretation of the statute would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,” Barrett wrote. ... Bloomberg

[mountaineer]

Mark Joseph Stern
@mjs_DC

I would wager that the Trump judges sided with the liberals because they're relatively young, understand computers decently well, and recognize that the government's preferred reading of the CFAA would criminalize a stunning range of conduct unworthy of federal prosecution.
10:10 AM · Jun 3, 2021·

[Sled Dog]

And what happens when there's a bazillion "federal" cases of people downloading porn onto their non-governmental work computers, signing onto their private e-mail accounts and searching the internet for the latest Silver Alert on Joe Biden?

The prosecutor has discretion to not file charges, for one.

And then the Congress has the responsibility to write a better law.

But a COP selling privileged information?   He was as guilty as hell and should have spent a few years in jail.   That was clearly a form of hacking, in which a third party gains illegal access by corrupting a trusted user.    Not really much different than stealing the password, actually.

To claim that the court dismissed the crime because some of the justices are more computer savvy implies...this is important...the judges are relying on information not presented by the parties to the hearing.   They're using their FEELINGS.    Isn't that wonderful?

The judgette dismissed the case because the law would criminalize much "commonplace" computer activity.

That's like the morons in California saying "don't prosecute property crimes that come under $950."  Because petty shoplifting is such a commonplace retail activity.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What about Snowden?  He was an authorized user.

[mountaineer]

Yes, some have asked what this might have to do with Snowden or Assange. I don't know.

[Sled Dog]

What about Snowden?  He was an authorized user.

So was Bradley Manning.

And Obama used government computers, too.   And all his gang.   They even conveniently "lost" them.