Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Use a Computer, Go to Jail

How a federal law can be used to prosecute almost anyone who visits a website

Jacob Sullum | From the July 2012 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

If you are reading this column online at work, you may be committing a federal crime. Or so says the Justice Department, which reads the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) broadly enough to encompass personal use of company computers as well as violations of website rules that people routinely ignore.

In April the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rightly rejected this view of the CFAA, which Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted could conceivably make a criminal out of "everyone who uses a computer." Unfortunately, other appeals courts have been more receptive to the Justice Department's interpretation, which gives U.S. attorneys the power to prosecute just about anyone who offends or annoys them.

Congress passed the original version of the CFAA in 1984, when the Internet was in its infancy and the World Wide Web did not exist, to protect government computer systems and financial databases from hackers. As a result of amendments and technological developments, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr explains in a 2010 Minnesota Law Review article, "the law that began as narrow and specific has become breathtakingly broad." 

The 9th Circuit case involved David Nosal, who left the executive search firm Korn/Ferry International in 2004 and allegedly enlisted two former colleagues to feed him proprietary client information with an eye toward starting a competing business. Nosal was charged with conspiracy, mail fraud, trade secret theft, and violating the CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized computer access in various circumstances.

Although Nosal's confederates were authorized to use Korn/Ferry's database, prosecutors argued that improperly sharing information with him rendered their access unauthorized. As Judge Kozinski noted, "the government's construction of the statute would expand its scope far beyond computer hacking to criminalize any unauthorized use of information obtained from a computer."

The felony Nosal was accused of committing involves unauthorized access "with intent to defraud." But the CFAA also makes someone guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, if he "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access" and "thereby obtains…information."

Based on the government's definition of unauthorized access, Kozinski observed, that provision would apply to "large groups of people who would have little reason to suspect they are committing a federal crime," such as employees who violate company policy by using workplace computers to play games, read blogs, watch YouTube videos, or check sports scores. Even people using their own computers on their own time could be prosecuted for violating "terms of service" they have never read by fibbing about their age or weight on dating sites, posting photos of other people without permission, or sharing content Facebook deems offensive.

Kerr notes that terms of service "are written extremely broadly to give providers a right to cancel accounts and not face any liability." Hence "violating the TOS is the norm," and criminalizing it "would give the government the ability to arrest anyone who regularly uses the Internet."

That danger is not merely theoretical. Remember Lori Drew, the Missouri woman who was widely vilified in 2007 after she played a MySpace prank on a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide? Although Missouri prosecutors concluded that Drew had broken no laws, Thomas O'Brien, then the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, took it upon himself to prosecute her for violating the CFAA by disregarding MySpace's TOS.

In 2009 U.S. District Judge George Wu threw out Drew's conviction, ruling that O'Brien's reading of the CFAA would make the law unconstitutionally vague, giving grandstanding prosecutors like him unbridled discretion while leaving their potential targets—pretty much everyone—uncertain about how to comply with the law. As Kozinski put it, "we shouldn't have to live at the mercy of our local prosecutor." 

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist. © Copyright 2012 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: No to Nukes

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.

PolicyNanny StateScience & TechnologyCivil LibertiesCriminal JusticeTechnologyRegulationInternetCensorshipFree Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (37)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. sarcasmic   13 years ago

    frist!

    1. Raistlin   13 years ago

      Bill Frist?

  2. rafuzo   13 years ago

    "Unfortunately, other appeals courts have been more receptive to the Justice Department's interpretation, which gives U.S. attorneys the power to prosecute just about anyone who offends or annoys them."

    Isn't that the purpose of just about every law written in the past 80 years?

    1. Jesse James Dean   13 years ago

      good point. And the answer is pretty much yes

      1. alicepaulin   7 years ago

        is good anwer sir, but like for jasa seo murah bergaransi halaman 1 google and seoteam.co.id

  3. ?Ex Nihilo?   13 years ago

    Three felonies a day.

    As Bastiat said

    "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."

    It seems legislatures and prosecutors are doing everything within their power to make people lose respect for the law.

    1. sarcasmic   13 years ago

      It seems legislatures and prosecutors are doing everything within their power to make people lose respect for the law their moral sense.

      ftfy

      1. Jesse James Dean   13 years ago

        I was thinking this myself. Nihilo, this is by design, as we are not supposed to have our own sense of morals. We are supposed to obey without question.

  4. generic Brand   13 years ago

    "When you control the [internet], you control... inforMAtion."

    /21st century Newman

  5. VG Zaytsev   13 years ago

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, ... that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

    1. Jesse James Dean   13 years ago

      George Carlin?

      1. Brandon Magoon   13 years ago

        Ayn Rand.

  6. CockGobbla   13 years ago

    OT:

    But where were the jury members in Ghostbusters II?

    1. CockGobbla   13 years ago

      Also, why were they restrained from bearing their proton packs? Weren't they duly deputized representatives of the government during the battle with Gozer?

  7. Tulpa the White   13 years ago

    So, two examples of the broad interpretation being rejected by the courts, and zero of it being accepted (other than an ominous "other courts have been more receptive" line, which doesn't even mean they accepted it).

    1. anon   13 years ago

      I got a different read on the article than you; I read the article as an example of executive branch creep due to legislators being either too ignorant or too apathetic to write a law that could be enforced justly.

    2. niobiumstudio   13 years ago

      I don't think it was just trying to scare people over something nobody will ever be prosecuted over for complete BS (like MySpace TOS) - I think the bigger picture is that outdated, overload broad laws just get more broad as time goes by. I think it is just a warning to keep an eye out for aging laws that start to allow the entire country to be prosecuted due to technological/social changes. Also a warning to hold legislators to a higher standard to pass better written laws that stand the test of time. Imagine if the constitution was written like this?

  8. Rich   13 years ago

    As Judge Kozinski noted, "the government's construction of the statute would expand its scope far beyond computer hacking to criminalize any unauthorized use of information obtained from a computer."

    Serious question: In this sort of law, how exactly is "information" defined?

    1. anon   13 years ago

      Any knowledge imparted upon the defendant; it's not limited to actual data or paperwork.

  9. Ed Reid   13 years ago

    The Terms of Use of many blog sites, including the Washington Times, The Atlantic, Newsweek, Social Media Today, etc. require users to agree to "indemnify, hold harmless and defend" the blog owners. Arguably, users who do not have the financial resources to do so are committing fraud by using the sites.

    1. niobiumstudio   13 years ago

      I know you are being sarcastic, but you are allowed to act as your own council in court!

      1. Ed Reid   13 years ago

        That would cover the "defend", but not the "indemnify" and "hold harmless".

        I am not being sarcastic. I have reviewed the TOU of every site where I have commented; and, I have ceased commenting on those which have the "indemnify, hold harmless and defend" clause.

      2. LarryA   13 years ago

        I know you are being sarcastic, but you are allowed to act as your own council in court!

        That would be defending yourself. The TOS requires you to defend the blog owners, and you can't act as their attorney in court.

  10. tallyho   13 years ago

    I have a business that I run out of my home. I have one computer. I 'cheat' my employer (myself) on a regular basis by using his/my computer for things like reading H+R between business activities. Do I fire myself first, or report myself to the authoritahs first...? Never mind, I just figured it out... I'm the boss, I can choose a course of action depending on the mood I'm in and whether that lazy, computer surfing, parasitic a'hole employee (me) is pissing me off enough. You know, kinda like the standard libertarian top hat and monocle management style.

    1. R C Dean   13 years ago

      the standard libertarian top hat and monocle management style

      So, its the cat o' nine tails for you, eh?

  11. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

    Yet another example of Future America.

  12. joy   13 years ago

    Nosal was charged with conspiracy, mail fraud, trade secret theft, and violating the CFAA, http://www.zonnebrilinnl.com/z......htmlwhich criminalizes unauthorized computer access in various circumstances.

  13. Rich M   13 years ago

    This article is almost word for word the same as the April 18th article on the same topic. ( http://reason.com/archives/201.....o-slackers )

    Couldn't come up with anything original?

  14. pjibs   13 years ago

    " Remember Lori Drew, the Missouri woman who was widely vilified in 2007 after she played a MySpace prank on a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide?"
    A "prank"? Wow; yours is a tough-shit world. Drew should not have been prosecuted. But that was no 'prank' my friend. That was hard-core aggression against a weak opponent.

  15. tipuasher   12 years ago

    Distinguished work, I read the column, continue the nice work.
    http://themarysophiatempleforworldpeace.net

  16. Pabrik Baja   9 years ago

    thanks again much obliged hi admin i love your blog touche outstanding arguments

  17. Plat Kapal   9 years ago

    keep functioning remarkable job where can i find additional information about this ? amazing post want more

  18. gudangbesibaja.com   9 years ago

    everyone loves this fantastic blog article it helped me very much

  19. besi beton   9 years ago

    i'll reblogged this on special collections here is a superb weblog this actually answered my drawback thanks

  20. jualbesibajamurah.com   9 years ago

    you are a very smart person liked your article post great articles

  21. pusatbesibaja.com   9 years ago

    excited with your article exceptionally well written liked your article post

  22. syaifulanam77   8 years ago

    Really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Thanks for sharing useful information. keep sharing like this so i can keep myself update through this blog.

  23. Bima Souvenir   8 years ago

    Amazing article! I high appreciate this post. It's hard to find the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you've nailed it! Would you mind updating your blog with more information!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!