Re:US Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Computer Fraud and Ab...
by saghm on Thursday June 03, 2021 @11:37PM
(#27390293)
> would be criminal regardless of whether a computer was even involved
I don't think GP is in disagreement with you that it's potentially illegal, just that the CFAA shouldn't apply here.
Re:US Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Computer Fraud and Ab...
by a1369209993 on Friday June 04, 2021 @12:24AM
(#27390526)
> I don't think GP is in disagreement with you
I am confused about how(/whether?) confused you are about what I said.
> > > The officer's actions were unauthorized on a system he was provided access to.
The CFAA does not apply here, because the officer's actions on the system were authorized. He did not "failed to follow the rules on a system he already had access to", he followed those rules, then separately did something illegal[see previous footnote] with the information he obtained in accordance with those rules.
If his actions (on the system) were unauthorized, that would be a CFAA violation, even he was authorized to access the system in some other way.
Er, no, that's specifically not the case. The officer's actions on the system in fact were authorized; he was authorized to look up licence plate information. The officer's actions later - specifically sharing private information with a third party - were criminal[0], and would be criminal regardless of whether a computer was even involved.
0: Give or take legislative and judicial corruption a al misrepresenting theft as 'civil forfeiture', but that's not really the point.