Live data from Hacker News

Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

eff.org

1–10 of 125 posts

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#2
The topic is interesting, but I would rather read an intelligent synopsis with comments on the implications than try to read the court opinion on my own without any input from those properly trained in the law.

(Linking to the actual decision IN ADDITION to some expert analysis would be a great idea.)

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#3
post #2

The topic is interesting, but I would rather read an intelligent synopsis with comments on the implications than try to read the court opinion on my own without any input from those properly trained in the law. (Linking to the actual decision IN ADDITION to some expert analysis would be a great idea.)

Good point, here's the Gizmodo article about it: http://gizmodo.com/court-rules-that-breaking-your-employers-...

In short: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion rejecting the government’s attempt to hold an employee criminally liable under the federal hacking statute—the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”)—for violating his employer-imposed computer use restrictions... The court also ruled that the government cannot hold people criminally liable on the basis of purely fantastical statements they make online—i.e., thoughtcrime.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#4
post #2

The topic is interesting, but I would rather read an intelligent synopsis with comments on the implications than try to read the court opinion on my own without any input from those properly trained in the law. (Linking to the actual decision IN ADDITION to some expert analysis would be a great idea.)

Good point, here's the Gizmodo article about it: http://gizmodo.com/court-rules-that-breaking-your-employers-... In short: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion rejecting the government’s attempt to hold an employee criminally liable under the federal hacking statute—the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”)—for violating his employer-imposed computer use restrictions... The cour…

From the gizmodo article:

Valle was also charged with violating the CFAA for accessing a police database to look up information about people without a valid law enforcement purpose, in violation of NYPD policy.

Querying a government database for personal use is a serious offense. I hope the court would address it separately from lesser rules such as "don't use Facebook at work."

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#5
In general, that's probably the right decision. But I also think that using police records for personal purposes is different from browsing Facebook at work.

One only damages the employer slightly, the other has huge potential issues against society at large. The CFAA is not the correct solution for this issue, but none the less, I think such behavior should be a criminal matter.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#8
post #5

In general, that's probably the right decision. But I also think that using police records for personal purposes is different from browsing Facebook at work. One only damages the employer slightly, the other has huge potential issues against society at large. The CFAA is not the correct solution for this issue, but none the less, I think such behavior should be a criminal matter.

This is true, but the correct response would probably be to criminalise abuse of police records specifically, rather than criminalising general organisation policy breaches.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#10
post #5

In general, that's probably the right decision. But I also think that using police records for personal purposes is different from browsing Facebook at work. One only damages the employer slightly, the other has huge potential issues against society at large. The CFAA is not the correct solution for this issue, but none the less, I think such behavior should be a criminal matter.

There must be different statutes to charge under. That cop infringed the civil liberties of the persons who came up in the search at a minimum.
Post reply on HN