August 01, 2014
July 31, 2014
Do Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Prosecutions Sometimes Go Too Far?
Offered here without commentary, an article from Slate concerning the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz who was set to go on trial next month for violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act for unlocking a database of scholarly articles.
Prosecutors charging decisions – particularly the amount of prison time and penalties to be sought – are generally discretionary, rarely reviewable, and certainly subject to abuse (and not just under the CFAA).
There should be near unanimous agreement that what happened to Aaron is sad and, if an over-reaching prosecution played a role, something that ought to be rectified.
<span class="advertise"> Advertisement </span>
- Trademark and Domain Name Scams: Scammers Still Be Scamming
- Implementing a Counterfeit Enforcement Program [VIDEO]
- Courts Reining In What it Means to be a “Hacker” Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFA)
- Bitcoins and Liability in the Wake of Recent Silk Road Arrests
- Qui Tam Whistleblower Case Against Axway, Inc. Settles For $6.2 Million
- Employees Who Download Trade Secrets As They Head Out the Door Can Be Guilty of TS Theft, Even Before They Make Use of the Information