advertisement
advertisement

Appellate Court Limits Computer Fraud And Abuse Act

Written by Evan Schuman
April 12th, 2012

In a major decision limiting corporate use of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday (April 10) said the law is intended to address true cybertheft and other criminal hacking efforts and nothing else. At issue was whether companies could threaten employees with federal prosecution for violating company policies, such as playing games on a company computer.

Beyond the fact that retailers have to deal with many of these employee issues, the potentially bigger retail impact of this ruling is how it would strengthen prosecutions of actual cyberthieves, who tend to work where they shop.

The court’s chief judge, Alex Kozinski, said the more flexible interpretation of the statute to apply to corporate employee policies is dangerous and wrong. “The government’s interpretation would transform the CFAA from an anti-hacking statute into an expansive misappropriation statute. If Congress meant to expand the scope of criminal liability to everyone who uses a computer in violation of computer use restrictions—which may well include everyone who uses a computer—we would expect it to use language better suited to that purpose.”

Kozinski also wrote of the potential peril if the court didn’t tighten the jurisdictional rules.

“Minds have wandered since the beginning of time and the computer gives employees new ways to procrastinate, by chatting with friends, playing games, shopping or watching sports highlights. Such activities are routinely prohibited by many computer-use policies, although employees are seldom disciplined for occasional use of work computers for personal purposes,” he wrote. “Nevertheless, under the broad interpretation of the CFAA, such minor dalliances would become federal crimes. Although it’s unlikely that you’ll be prosecuted for watching Reason.TV on your work computer, you could be. Employers wanting to rid themselves of troublesome employees without following proper procedures could threaten to report them to the FBI unless they quit. Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

StorefrontBacktalk‘s legal columnist, Mark Rasch, used to head up computer fraud prosecutions for the U.S. Justice Department. Indeed, he ran that area in the earliest days of the CFAA’s creation and usage. Rasch said one of the biggest fears of the expansion of the law today is the potential for companies to use it to cover up illegal firings.

Say, for example, that the company fires worker 1234 for something inappropriate, such as refusing to run personal errands for the CEO. After the firing, the company could review computer logs and discover a minor infraction. Then they say to the former employee, in an attempt to scare them into not suing, “We noticed that you visited Facebook during work hours,” Rasch said. “That’s a crime, so we fired you for criminal activity. I’d say that’s a little absurd.”


advertisement

One Comment | Read Appellate Court Limits Computer Fraud And Abuse Act

  1. Chet Uber Says:

    The court is correct, Rash is correct. Employers should do what their Security consultants should have told them to. Banners that clearly state you have NO EXPECTATION TO ANY RIGHT OF PRIVACY and company computers are NEVER TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN company work. In order to make this easier, we Company X have conveniently places a Wireless Access point in the lunch room the password is available from your Supervisor, and three (3) machines are available for sharing – 10 minutes at a time – please be curtious of those with legitimate emergency reasons; and any illegal activity on the break room network suffers all the same punishments as those machines located at your desk. Be clear, be stern. Be human. Employees will appreciate it, you can with most RBUC software manage the sharing time without thinking about it twice. Blacklist as you would your small children. You will find the bill for .25 hours in your Counsels in box, my rate is $250/hr. Keep it out of the court, don’t change the law. This is solely an employee/employer relationship that should be cordial, fair and use inexpensive monitoring gear and add it to though that monitor for exfiltration of TRADE SECRET and other documents or your firewall manager. It can be done with open source and a geek or money.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.