Van Buren is a victory against overbroad interpretations of the CFAA

Re:Van Buren is a victory against overbroad interpretations ... by WillPostForFood on Friday June 04, 2021 @05:34PM (#27399323)

That's incorrect. If you read the full statute, it has to be unauthorized access combined with some sort of theft of data, or access of governmental records. It wouldn't apply to browsing public sites. The specific subsection that was applied to Can Buren lays out three cases. Unauthorized access plus obtaining:

(A)information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

(B)information from any department or agency of the United States; or

(C)information from any protected computer;

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Van Buren is a victory against overbroad interpretations ... by rurabe on Friday June 04, 2021 @06:17PM (#27399707)

Thanks for posting this, I didn't realize there was a such a tangle of definitions as to what was accessed.

That said, doesn't this pretty much include anything on the web?

(a)Whoever— (2)intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C)information from any protected computer;

where a "protected computer" is:

(e)As used in this section— (2) the term “protected computer” means a computer— (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication

seems like that would catch an awful lot of webservers.

[ Parent | on HN ]