{"id":15171,"date":"2016-07-14T11:58:42","date_gmt":"2016-07-14T15:58:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=15171"},"modified":"2016-07-14T11:58:42","modified_gmt":"2016-07-14T15:58:42","slug":"legal-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2016\/07\/14\/legal-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2016\/07\/12\/9th-circuit-its-a-federal-crime-to-visit-a-website-after-being-told-not-to-visit-it\/\">Orin Kerr<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote cite=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2016\/07\/12\/9th-circuit-its-a-federal-crime-to-visit-a-website-after-being-told-not-to-visit-it\/\"><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has handed down a very important decision on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2016\/07\/12\/13-17102.pdf\"><em>Facebook v. Vachani<\/em><\/a>, which I flagged just last week. For those of us worried about broad readings of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/18\/1030\">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act<\/a>, the decision is quite troubling. Its reasoning appears to be very broad. If I&rsquo;m reading it correctly, it says that if you tell people not to visit your website, and they do it anyway knowing you disapprove, they&rsquo;re committing a federal crime of accessing your computer without authorization.<\/p><p>[&#8230;]<\/p><p>At this point you may be thinking: Hey, wait, didn&rsquo;t the en banc 9th Circuit rule in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/files\/filenode\/nosal_en_banc.pdf\"><em>Nosal I<\/em><\/a> that using a computer in violation of its terms of use is not a CFAA violation? If intentionally using a computer in violation of the terms of use is legal authorized access, as the en banc 9th Circuit held in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/files\/filenode\/nosal_en_banc.pdf\">Nosal I<\/a><\/em>, why is intentionally using a computer after receiving a cease-and-desist letter criminal access &ldquo;without authorization&rdquo;? In one case, the user goes to the website and sees the terms; in the other, the website owner contacts the user and shows the terms to them. But it&rsquo;s the same thing, right?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.schneier.com\/blog\/archives\/2016\/07\/password_sharin_1.html\">Bruce Schneier<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote cite=\"https:\/\/www.schneier.com\/blog\/archives\/2016\/07\/password_sharin_1.html\">\n<p>In a truly terrible ruling, the US 9th Circuit Court ruled that using someone else&rsquo;s password with their permission but without the permission of the site owner is a <a href=\"https:\/\/motherboard.vice.com\/read\/password-sharing-is-a-federal-crime\">federal crime<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2016\/06\/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer\">Mark Rumold<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote cite=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2016\/06\/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer\"><p>In a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/files\/2016\/06\/23\/matish_suppression_edva.pdf\">dangerously flawed decision unsealed today<\/a>, a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no &ldquo;reasonable expectation of privacy&rdquo; in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual&rsquo;s computer.<\/p><\/blockquote>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Orin Kerr: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has handed down a very important decision on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Facebook v. Vachani, which I flagged just last week. For those of us worried about broad readings of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the decision is quite troubling. Its [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"apple_news_api_created_at":"","apple_news_api_id":"","apple_news_api_modified_at":"","apple_news_api_revision":"","apple_news_api_share_url":"","apple_news_coverimage":0,"apple_news_coverimage_caption":"","apple_news_is_hidden":false,"apple_news_is_paid":false,"apple_news_is_preview":false,"apple_news_is_sponsored":false,"apple_news_maturity_rating":"","apple_news_metadata":"\"\"","apple_news_pullquote":"","apple_news_pullquote_position":"","apple_news_slug":"","apple_news_sections":"\"\"","apple_news_suppress_video_url":false,"apple_news_use_image_component":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[25,209,981,96],"class_list":["post-15171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-technology","tag-facebook","tag-legal","tag-passwords","tag-web"],"apple_news_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15171"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15171\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15172,"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15171\/revisions\/15172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}