31–40 of 125 posts
> 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.
This is not a typical "employer policy". This a policy about access to sensitive private data that is only available to the government. Wouldn't you want improper access to such data punished?
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.
Its gross misconduct and in the uk Malfeasance in office (surely there is an equivalent law in the USA. And doesn't the US equivalent of the official secrets act apply to all police officers?
For the people who skipped the article and assumed that the case was about some stupid office policy: > 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. This is not a typical "employer policy". This a policy about access to sensitive private data that is only available to the governm…
"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." I find it odd that the prosecutors decided to go with a computer fraud charge for this crime, aren't there any laws that would prohibit this action regardless of method used? If he chose to lookup paper files on unrelated people, wou…
It's disquieting that this isn't sanctioned. There ought to be a law against this.
It's tempting to want a perfect judicial code, but it's impossible, iterated law is really the only way.
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.
> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied throu…
1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers?
2. Since the second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, without further amendment, that right should be unrestricted by any registration process considered onerous or restrictive?
"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." I find it odd that the prosecutors decided to go with a computer fraud charge for this crime, aren't there any laws that would prohibit this action regardless of method used? If he chose to lookup paper files on unrelated people, wou…
Paper files would probably be locked up - the equivalent prosecution would then be something like trespass, breaking and entering, or what have you.
If you have access to data for operational purposes then access outside of operational needs is just unauthorised access which on computer systems is an offence in itself because physical access is already historically covered under various laws.
For the people who skipped the article and assumed that the case was about some stupid office policy: > 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. This is not a typical "employer policy". This a policy about access to sensitive private data that is only available to the governm…
Quote from the appeals court ruling: "Valle concedes that he violated the terms of his employment by putting his authorized computer access to personal use..."
Ref: " rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/repugnant-online-...
> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied throu…
Could you extrapolate from that though that: 1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? 2. Since the second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, without further amendment, that right should be unrestricted by any registration process considered onerous or restrictive?