SCROTEs Flub Another One

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Trump SCOTUS Appointees Rule Against Admin's Interpretation of Fraud Act

"On the Government's reading of the statute, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using her work computer has violated" the law, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

www.newsweek.com

"As part of Van Buren's job, he had access to a law enforcement database of license plate and vehicle registration information. After he ran a license plate search, prosecutors charged him with fraud and with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Van Buren was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 18 months in prison. He argued that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act didn't apply because he accessed a database that he was authorized to access."


That may be true, but he did for for unauthorized purposes.


Donny's lackeys ruled against his DOJ arguments:

"Lawyers for Van Buren had warned when the case was argued in late November that if the court ruled against him it could have sweeping consequences. They argued it could make a federal crime out of using a computer for virtually any unauthorized purpose, from "checking sports scores at work to inflating one's height on a dating website."

The court agreed. Trump's three appointees to the court joined the three liberals to rule for Van Buren. Barrett wrote for the majority that the government's interpretation of the law "would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity." She said if the government's interpretation of the law were correct, then "millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals.""

That's correct, it should be a violation. Many workplace computers have a large amount of private data and those systems should never have public web access.

 

[nakedfrog]

Trump SCOTUS Appointees Rule Against Admin's Interpretation of Fraud Act

"On the Government's reading of the statute, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using her work computer has violated" the law, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

www.newsweek.com

"As part of Van Buren's job, he had access to a law enforcement database of license plate and vehicle registration information. After he ran a license plate search, prosecutors charged him with fraud and with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Van Buren was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 18 months in prison. He argued that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act didn't apply because he accessed a database that he was authorized to access."


That may be true, but he did for for unauthorized purposes.


Donny's lackeys ruled against his DOJ arguments:

"Lawyers for Van Buren had warned when the case was argued in late November that if the court ruled against him it could have sweeping consequences. They argued it could make a federal crime out of using a computer for virtually any unauthorized purpose, from "checking sports scores at work to inflating one's height on a dating website."

The court agreed. Trump's three appointees to the court joined the three liberals to rule for Van Buren. Barrett wrote for the majority that the government's interpretation of the law "would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity." She said if the government's interpretation of the law were correct, then "millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals.""

That's correct, it should be a violation. Many workplace computers have a large amount of private data and those systems should never have public web access.

You think it should rise to the level of "crime" if you read a news article at work?
If a system shouldn't have public web access, well, then it shouldn't have public web access, and you wouldn't be able to read a news article on that system.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Yes, I do. If the work system is not set up to allow you to, it usually means you've done something to circumvent their system to do so.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yes, I do. If the work system is not set up to allow you to, it usually means you've done something to circumvent their system to do so.

Or someone is terrible at setting permissions....

The general consensus over at Arstechnica is that the ruling is the "correct" one. Otherwise it would open a whole can of worms form things that could be prosecuted under CFAA

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Aside from that 'potential', don't forget that the subject abused an official database for personal reasons.

 

[rommelrommel]

Sounds like the law needs a rewrite then, what he did should obviously be captured within a law somewhere.

 

[nakedfrog]

Aside from that 'potential', don't forget that the subject abused an official database for personal reasons.

I'm not saying the subject didn't commit a crime, but this is not the way.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm actually on the side of SCOTUS here. That law is so comically broad that it criminalizes a huge swath of pretty normal behavior. Circumstances like this go generally unenforced for obvious reasons but it enables a boss to go after an employee they don't like, etc.

 

[pauldun170]

Here you go

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf

 

[BoomerD]

Aside from that 'potential', don't forget that the subject abused an official database for personal reasons.

That's a completely different issue...and probably a different set of criminal charges.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's correct, it should be a violation. Many workplace computers have a large amount of private data and those systems should never have public web access.

You misunderstand the purpose of a court.
The SCOTUS is correct in protecting us from overreach. If the law is as vague and sketchy as they say it is, we would all be in prison if it were "applied" as it is.

 

[Brainonska511]

I can't tell - are you in favor or against laws that enable extremely broad (and ripe for abuse) prosecutorial discretion because the laws are written and interpreted in an overly broad manner? Your posts are all over the road.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

You're essentially advocating for criminalizing ToS and Acceptable Use policies...

If we need to criminalize unauthorized access to or use of PII that should be captured separately.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would love to see Trump go to prison but not for being orange