Posted on 06/04/2021 12:18:08 PM PDT by Renfrew
The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer who searched a license plate database for an acquaintance in exchange for cash did not violate U.S. hacking laws.
The landmark ruling concludes a long-running case that clarifies the controversial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, by putting limits on what kind of conduct can be prosecuted.
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Nathan Van Buren, a former Georgia police sergeant who brought the case. Van Buren was prosecuted on two counts, one for accepting a kickback for accessing the database as a serving police officer, and another for violating the CFAA. His first conviction was overturned, but the CFAA conviction was upheld — until today.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcrunch.com ...
Decision was Trump judges + Liberals vs. Thomas, Alito and Roberts.
There is a pattern that the three Trump judges are much more libertarian than the three Bush ones.
So you are in favor of any LEO taking cash from a criminal looking for the owner of a vehicle??? Are you high?
I disagree - this was a stupid decision and Thomas is right.
Suppose he had keys to the evidence locker and went in after hours to remove evidence.
Just because he has the keys doesn’t absolve him of trespassing. Same rationale applies here.
Mmm, so okay, invasion of privacy by an official for money is just fine.
That guy should be punished, but it’s a bad law. The law states that anyone who uses a computer for other than an approved purpose is guilty of a federal crime.
Checking FreeRepublic on a work computer without your boss’ approval? Under this law that could be 10 years in jail.
Gotta agree that the conduct of bribery searching is terrible, but the law applied that broadly is not a well worded law.
Charges should have been more about corrupt use of office. Not blanket any kind of access.
Hey NEWBIE..are you DRUNK???
Exactly, it seems he was also charged with “accepting a kickback for accessing the database as a serving police officer.” That is the crime he should have gone to jail for, not the vague Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.
RICO being used against Pro Lifers is a case in point.
Ridiculing "newbies" on FR makes you look juvenile and petty. Are seasoned Freepers smarter than newbies? Of course not.
No he can read that Congress needs to write a better law.
Given how the Democrats abuse every branch and portion of the government they control, reigning their power in is a win for freedom.
It was a bad application of an overbroad law.
There should be a specific law about disclosing government into for illicit purposes.
I think his conduct was criminal, but I do not think it was hacking . JMO
Convict him of spying or espionage, throw him in jail or execute him.
Thanks Newbie. Now mind YOUR MANNERS.
The average Freeper can take a look at your posting history and see that you are a troll...a big troll.
Disappointing that in a ruling that hinges on the intent of the Legislature such scant attention is given by either side to the words of those who passed the law!
If Thomas and Alito think it is wrong, it is almost certainly wrong!
From the dissent:
“The Court does not dispute that the phrase “exceeds authorized access” readily encompasses Van Buren’s conduct. It notes, instead, that the statute includes a definition for that phrase and that “we must follow that definition, even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning.”
The problem for the majority view, however, is that the text, ordinary principles of property law, and statutory history establish that the definitional provision is quite consistent with the term it defines....
The majority postulates an alternative reading of this definitional provision: So long as a person is entitled to use a computer to obtain information in at least one circumstance, this statute does not apply even if the person obtains the data outside that circumstance. In effect, the majority reads the statute to apply only when a person is “not entitled [under any possible circumstance] so to obtain” information. This interpretation is flawed for a number of reasons.
Foremost, that interpretation is contrary to the plain meaning of the text. Entitlements are necessarily circumstance dependent; a person is entitled to do something only when “proper grounds” or facts are in place. Focusing on the word “so,” the majority largely avoids analyzing the term “entitled,” concluding at the outset in a single sentence that Van Buren was entitled to obtain this license-plate information. But the plain meaning of “entitled” compels the opposite conclusion.
Because Van Buren lacked a law enforcement purpose, the “proper grounds” did not exist. He was not entitled to obtain the data when he did so. A few real-world scenarios illustrate the point. An employee who is entitled to pull the alarm in the event of a fire is not entitled to pull it for some other purpose, such as to delay a meeting for which he is unprepared...Consider trespass. When a person is authorized to enter land and entitled to use that entry for one purpose but does so for another, he trespasses....
...The majority’s argument also proves too much. Much of the Federal Code criminalizes common activity. Absent aggravating factors, the penalty for violating this Act is a misdemeanor. §1030(c)(2)(A). This Act thus penalizes minerun offenders about as harshly as federal law punishes a person who removes a single grain of sand from the National Mall, 40 U. S. C. §8103(b); breaks a lamp in a Government building, ibid.; or permits a horse to eat grass on
federal land, 18 U. S. C. §1857...”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
I see this as an extremely narrow ruling. May be appropriate.
Just because the CFAA was ruled not to apply doesn’t mean this guy should not be held responsible for his actions and I assume everyone gets that.
He is a police officer and used a database meant for law enforcement for personal business, and he should be fired right off the bat for that.
Remember how many of us were outraged when conservatives were getting doxxed by federal employees who were providing the information illicitly to Leftist protesters, particularly in the case of Sarah Sanders whose whereabouts were revealed with information provided from Leftists working in government?
Not even close, no questions asked. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no business being involved in IT, security, or anything else even related to computers.
It may well be that the CFAA ruling was invoked incorrectly by the Feds, there is a damned surprise. And I honestly don’t know much about the CFAA, but I suspect it is being used when it shouldn’t, and not being used WHEN IT DAMN WELL SHOULD! (Given FBI and DOJ proclivities these days)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.