Editing Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (section)

===Criminal cases===
* ''[[United States v. Morris (1991)]]'', 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991), decided March 7, 1991. After the release of the [[Morris worm]], an early [[computer worm]], its creator was convicted under the Act for causing damage and gaining unauthorized access to "federal interest" computers. The Act was amended in 1996, in part, to clarify language whose meaning was disputed in the case.<ref name="usvmorris505">{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Morris (1991) |vol=928 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=504 |pinpoint=505 |court=2d Cir. |date=1991 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=551386241451639668}}</ref>
* ''[[United States v. Lori Drew]]'', 2009. The [[cyberbullying]] case involving the suicide of a girl harassed on [[MySpace]]. Charges were under 18 USC 1030(a)(2)(c) and (b)(2)(c). Judge Wu decided that using {{uscsub|18|1030|a|2|C}} against someone violating a [[terms of service]] agreement would make the law overly broad. 259 F.R.D. 449 <ref>[https://www.scribd.com/doc/23406419/Governments-Trial-Memo ''U.S. v. Lori Drew''], scribd</ref><ref>[https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/IST432TEAM24/United+States+v.+Lori+Drew US v Lori Drew, psu.edu] Kyle Joseph Sassman,</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/07/myspace-mom-lori-drews-conviction-thrown-out/|title='MySpace mom' Lori Drew's conviction thrown out|last=Staff|first=Ars|date=2009-07-02|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us|access-date=2020-03-31}}</ref>
*''United States v. Rodriguez'', 2010. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled that a [[Social Security Administration]] employee had violated the CFAA when he used an SSA database to look up information about people he knew personally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1549806.html|title=FindLaw's United States Eleventh Circuit case and opinions.|website=Findlaw|language=en-US|access-date=2020-03-31}}</ref>
* ''[[PayPal 14|United States v. Collins et al]]'', 2011. A group of men and women connected to the collective [[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]] signed a plea deal to charges of conspiring to disrupt access to the payment website PayPal in response to the payment shutdown to [[WikiLeaks]] over the [[Wau Holland Foundation]] which was part of a wider Anonymous campaign, [[Operation Payback]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/528058/20131206/paypal-14-freedom-fighters-plead-guilty-cyber.htm |author=David Gilbert |title=PayPal 14 'Freedom Fighters' Plead Guilty to Cyber-Attack |work=International Business Times |date=December 6, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/05/inside-the-paypal-14-trial.html |author=Alexa O'Brien |title=Inside the 'PayPal 14' Trial |work=The Daily Beast |date=December 5, 2013}}</ref> They later became known under the name PayPal 14.
* ''[[United States v. Aaron Swartz]]'', 2011. [[Aaron Swartz]] allegedly entered an MIT wiring closet and set up a laptop to mass-download articles from [[JSTOR]]. He allegedly avoided various attempts by JSTOR and MIT to stop this, such as [[MAC address spoofing]]. He was indicted for violating CFAA provisions (a)(2), (a)(4), (c)(2)(B)(iii), (a)(5)(B), and (c)(4)(A)(i)(I),(VI).<ref>See [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data-theft/ Internet Activist Charged in M.I.T. Data Theft, By NICK BILTON] ''New York Times'', July 19, 2011, 12:54 PM, as well as the [https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.mad.137971 Indictment]</ref> The case was dismissed after Swartz committed [[suicide]] in January 2013.<ref>Dave Smith, [http://www.ibtimes.com/aaron-swartz-case-us-doj-drops-all-pending-charges-against-jstor-liberator-days-after-his-suicide Aaron Swartz Case: U.S. DOJ Drops All Pending Charges Against The JSTOR Liberator, Days After His Suicide], [[International Business Times]], January 15, 2013.</ref>
* ''[[United States v. Nosal]]'', 2011. Nosal and others allegedly accessed a [[protected computer]] to take a database of contacts from his previous employer for use in his own business, violating 1030(a)(4).<ref>[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/28/10-10038.pdf ''U.S. v. Nosal''], uscourts.gov, 2011</ref><ref>[https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/no-hacking-required/ Appeals Court: No Hacking Required to Be Prosecuted as a Hacker], By David Kravets, ''Wired'', April 29, 2011</ref> This was a complex case with multiple trips to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that violating a website's terms of use is not a violation of the CFAA. He was convicted in 2013.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/man-convicted-of-hacking-despite-no-hacking/ |magazine=Wired |first=David |last=Kravets |title=Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking |date=April 24, 2013}}</ref> In 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that he had acted "without authorization" when he used the username and password of a current employee with their consent and affirmed his conviction.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/05/14-10037.pdf|title=Nos. 14-10037, 14-10275}}</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1344.html|title=Docket for 16-1344|website=www.supremecourt.gov|access-date=2020-03-31}}</ref>
* ''[[Cisco Systems#Antitrust lawsuit|United States v. Peter Alfred-Adekeye]]'' 2011. Adekeye allegedly violated (a)(2), when he allegedly downloaded [[CISCO IOS]], allegedly something that the CISCO employee who gave him an access password did not permit. Adekeye was CEO of [[Multiven]] and had accused CISCO of [[anti-competitive]] practices.<ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-VQYa94fZpfZDY4MGQ1YjItYmEyZS00MGI4LWE0N2EtMmMzZmY0NTE5MTdj&hl=en_US&pli=1 US v Adekeye] Indictment. see also [http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_18618018?nclick_check=1 Federal Grand Jury indicts former Cisco Engineer] By Howard Mintz, 08/05/2011, Mercury News</ref>
* ''United States v [[Sergey Aleynikov]]'', 2011. Aleynikov was a programmer at [[Goldman Sachs]] accused of copying code, like [[high-frequency trading]] code, allegedly in violation of 1030(a)(2)(c) and 1030(c)(2)(B)i–iii and 2. This charge was later dropped, and he was instead charged with theft of [[trade secret]]s and transporting stolen property.<ref>[https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/Aleynikov-Sergey-Motion-to-Seal.pdf US v Sergey Aleynikov], Case 1:10-cr-00096-DLC Document 69 Filed 10/25/10</ref><ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2GvteRoihQE Ex-Goldman Programmer Described Code Downloads to FBI (Update1)], David Glovin and David Scheer. July 10, 2009, Bloomberg</ref>
* ''[[Nada Nadim Prouty|United States v Nada Nadim Prouty]]'', {{circa|2010}}.<ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/hezbospyplea.pdf Plea Agreement], U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. via debbieschlussel.com</ref> Prouty was an FBI and CIA agent who was prosecuted for having a fraudulent marriage to get US residency. She claims she was persecuted by a U.S. attorney who was trying to gain media coverage by calling her a terrorist agent and get himself promoted to a federal judgeship.<ref name=frogs1>
[http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/tag/podcast-episode/ Sibel Edmond's Boiling Frogs podcast 61]  Thursday, 13. October 2011. Interview with Prouty by Peter B. Collins and Sibel Edmonds</ref>
* ''[[United States v. Neil Scott Kramer]]'', 2011. Kramer was a court case where a cellphone was used to coerce a minor into engaging sex with an adult. Central to the case was whether a cellphone constituted a computer device. Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that a cell phone can be considered a computer if "the phone perform[s] arithmetic, logical, and storage functions", paving the way for harsher consequences for criminals engaging with minors over cellphones.<ref name="us v neil scott kramer">{{cite web |title=United States of America v. Neil Scott Kramer |url=http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/02/101983P.pdf |access-date=2012-03-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110816002424/http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/02/101983P.pdf |archive-date=2011-08-16 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* ''[[United States v. Kane]]'', 2011. Exploiting a [[software bug]] in a [[poker machine]] does not constitute hacking <ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/video-poker-hacking-dismissed/ |magazine=Wired |first=Kevin |last=Poulsen |title=Feds Drop Hacking Charges in Video-Poker Glitching Case |date=May 7, 2013}}</ref> because the [[poker machine]] in question failed to constitute a "[[protected computer]]" under the statute (as the [[poker machine]] in question did not demonstrate a tangential relationship to [[interstate commerce]]) and because the sequence of button presses that triggered the bug were considered held to have "not exceed[ed] their authorized access." {{As of|November 2013}} the defendant still faces a regular [[wire fraud]] charge.<ref>[http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2013/11/13/no-expansion-of-cfaa-liability-for-monetary-exploit-of-software-bug/ No Expansion of CFAA Liability for Monetary Exploit of Software Bug | New Media and Technology Law Blog<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
*''[[United States v. Valle]]'', 2015. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit Court of Appeals]] overturned a conviction against a police officer who had used a police database to look up information about women he knew personally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-gilberto-valle|title=United States v. Gilberto Valle|date=2015-03-06|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=2020-03-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/second-circuit-adopts-narrow-construction-federal-computer-fraud-statute-joins-circuit-split|title=Second Circuit Adopts Narrow Construction of Federal Computer Fraud Statute, Joins Circuit Split|date=2015-12-10|website=Jackson Lewis|language=en|access-date=2020-03-31}}</ref>
*''[[Van Buren v. United States]]'', 2020. A police officer in Georgia was caught in an FBI sting operation using his authorized access to a license plate database to check the identity of a person for cash payment, an "improper purpose". The officer was convicted and sentenced to 18 months under CFAA §1030(a)(2). Though he appealed his conviction on the basis that the "improper purpose" was not "exceeding authorized access", the Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction based on precedent. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 that under CFAA, that a person "exceeds authorized access" of a computer system they otherwise have access to when they access files and other content that are off-limits to the portions of the computer system they were authorized to access. Their opinion restricted CFAA from applying to cases where a person obtains information from areas they do have authorized access to, but uses that information for improper reasons.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2020/04/24/the-cybersecurity-202-there-s-finally-a-supreme-court-battle-coming-over-the-nation-s-main-hacking-law/5ea1ade6602ff140c1cc5f51/ | title = The Cybersecurity 202: There's finally a Supreme Court battle coming over the nation's main hacking law | first = Joseph | last = Marks | date = April 24, 2020 | access-date = July 15, 2020 | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/03/politics/supreme-court-cybercrime-law-case/index.html | title = Supreme Court sides with police officer who improperly searched license plate database | first1=  Brian | last1 = Fung | first2= Ariane | last2= de Vogue | first3= Devan | last3= Cole | date = June 3, 2021 | accessdate = June 3, 2021 | work = [[CNN]] }}</ref>