Editor’s Note: This is the first in a two-part series.
In United States v. Nosal, No. 10-10038, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7151(9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, en banc, held that the prohibition against “exceed[ing] authorized access” to a computer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. §1030, which provides both criminal and civil penalties for such action, does not apply when an employee has been granted access to the company computer infrastructure but uses that access, against company policy and the obvious interests of the company, to copy valuable, confidential information in order to take business from the company. For various reasons, articulated well in the dissent by Judge Barry Silverman (joined by only one other judge), the Ninth Circuit is wrong. What makes the decision particularly interesting is that, because it challenges the Justice Department’s interpretation of the CFAA, it stands the best chance of making its way to the Supreme Court, a far more likely result than in any of the civil cases that held as Nosal did.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
