Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
On July 5th , the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which found, in part, that sharing passwords is a crime prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The decision, according to a dissenting opinion on the case, makes millions of people who share passwords for services like Netflix and HBOGo into "unwitting federal criminals."
The decision came in the case of David Nosal, an employee at the executive search (or headhunter) firm Korn/Ferry International. Nosal left the firm in 2004 after being denied a promotion. Though he stayed on for a year as a contractor, he was simultaneously preparing to launch a competing search firm, along with several co-conspirators. Though all of their computer access was revoked, they continued to access a Korn/Ferry candidate database, known as Searcher, using the login credentials of Nosal's former assistant, who was still with the firm.
Nosal was eventually charged with conspiracy, theft of trade secrets and three counts under CFAA, and was sentenced to prison time, probation, and nearly $900,000 in restitution and fines.
Nosal's conviction under CFAA hinged on a clause that criminalizes anyone who "knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization". Though CFAA is often understood to be an anti-hacking law, that clause in particular has been applied to many cases that fall far short of actual systems tampering.
What about sharing your Kickass Torrents password?
Source: http://fortune.com/2016/07/10/sharing-netflix-password-crime/
takyon: Non-Fortune link: Ever Use Someone Else's Password? Go to Jail, says the Ninth Circuit
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:06AM
Scaremongering at the worst.
Taking a case about making off with business records of an employer in a scheme to use it to bootstrap a competitor and trying to scare people into thinking it means they are coming after you because you used your Mom's Netflix account across state lines.
Yes it might have been in a dissenting opinion, but always remember that most judges are incompetent in general regarding tech and a bunch are just nuts in general. No way the Feds are ever going after people watching Game of Thrones on a friend's account, at most they will start identifying such abusers and turning off accounts or forcing a password reset. The dollar amounts at stake are far too low to justify lawyers, courts, etc.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:26AM
Throwing a used kleenex in your neighbors trash bin while it sits on the street awaiting collection is also theft of services.
But nobody gets on you for that.
Also Netflix allows password sharing withing families or some approximation there of.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:58PM
Throwing a used kleenex in your neighbors trash bin while it sits on the street awaiting collection is also theft of services.
But nobody gets on you for that.
Obviously the solution is more surveillance cameras
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @02:49PM
Theresa May, may that be you?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:35AM
No way the Feds are ever going after people watching Game of Thrones on a friend's account
Why not? The Feds absolutely love awful precedents and laws, because while they do not normally need to use them, they can potentially use them against anyone if they are considered a target of interest. Can't get someone for a real crime? Get them for violating some obscure nonsense.
The government's has been demonstrated time and time again. Stop living in your cave.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:46AM
no shit. look at what they did to barrett brown and andrew swartz. stupid pigs will use anything at their disposal.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @02:22AM
In death, a member of project mayhem has a name. His name is Aaron Swartz.
His name is Aaron Swartz.
His name is Aaron Swartz.
His name is Aaron Swartz.
His name is Aaron Swartz.
His name is Aaron Swartz.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @03:53AM
Very true. My dad was in law enforcement for 30 years and at one point he worked in an area where human trafficking was an issue, namely Cuban refugees. The situation usually went like this: a boat, on a trailer, attached to a truck. All of those vehicles were in different names and none of those names were present. So he would look for a reason to pull them over - usually piddly shit like a light out or improper lane change. He made a few busts like that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:57AM
but always remember that most judges are incompetent in general regarding tech and a bunch are just nuts in general.
I'd point out that this is the Ninth Circuit court, which covers, among other areas, Silicon Valley and Seattle/Redmond, WA. As such, they see a lot of tech cases.
That's not to say that some of the judges there aren't technical idiots or batshit crazy. However, I'd be inclined to think that that particular court would be a bit more knowledgeable about tech than other circuit courts.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:58AM
I'd point out that this is the Ninth Circuit court, which covers, among other areas, Silicon Valley and Seattle/Redmond, WA. As such, they see a lot of tech cases.
Argh! Mangled the link. Here you go:
Ninth Circuit Court Coverage Map [uscourts.gov]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday July 12 2016, @02:08AM
Yea, but that has to be balanced with their reputation as the "Ninth Circus."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @02:21AM
Adding-
The 9th tends to be the more progressive (in the true sense of the word) district courts, and is usually pretty informed on tech issues compared to the other courts.
The theft is distinct from the password issue in my mind, as the information could have been conveyed to the other parties without the password through Nosal, and it would still be fraud.
To muddy the issue with password sharing wasn't the best from the 9th, and invoking the CFAA was stretching at best.
Not good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:08AM
Confession may be good for the soul, but it's even better for the prosecuting attorney.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @12:42AM
So when they demand your Twatbook and/or other passwords at the border, they're inciting you to commit a federal crime?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:21AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 12 2016, @05:46AM
It does make me wonder what would happen if border security wanted me to show them stuff on my laptop that would violate my NDA. Would I be breaking the law by complying?
No because an NDA is not law, it's a contract. You might be in violation of the terms of that contract, but that isn't against the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @06:55AM
Which means you are double-fucked. Nice.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:18PM
No.
You have a choice.
1. Violate your NDA, and show border security the confidential information.
2. Do not violate your NDA, and do not show border security the confidential information.
If you choose 1, you may be single or double-fucked depending on the whims of border security. You have partly satisfied border security. You can fully satisfy them if you also show them the pr0n on your laptop. The consequences are (A) being fucked for violating your NDA; and (B) possibly still being fucked at the whim of the border security bozos.
If you choose 2, you are only single-fucked, not double-fucked. Border security is likely to fuck you no matter what you do. The only question is how hard. So it may be best not to violate your NDA and hope for the best. You could still offer to show them the pr0n on your laptop, which is probably what they are actually looking for.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @02:13PM
so 1.25-fucked
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday July 12 2016, @07:16PM
I've not been in this situation. My inclination would be to walk away, dispose of the computer or just replace the contents of its storage, then come back later to make another attempt at entry. How might that go over?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by J053 on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:04AM
IOW, just because you have the password to a system doesn't mean you are authorized. If you steal my SN password and log in as me, that is damn well not authorized.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday July 12 2016, @03:48AM
So once again, a click-bait headline on a SN post?
Yeah, I know that was the title of the Fortune article linked to.
But shouldn't our title be something along the lines of "Fortune.com fraudulently claims that Sharing Your Netflix Password Is Now a Federal Crime" ?
We should be better than that. We should call bullshit where it is easily seen.
Ok, Mr. Plow submission. You can't really expect much. This is why we should ban bot submissions. The dupe the readership into believing there are sufficient articles in the queue.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @04:12AM
Well apparently takyon fell for it as he added his own opinion on the end.
Sounds like a dude going into a computer he was not authorized for and was shock of shocks convicted of that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @07:57AM
But shouldn't our title be something along the lines of "Fortune.com fraudulently claims that Sharing Your Netflix Password Is Now a Federal Crime" ?
I believe the working title of the artical was "Sharing Your Netflix Password Is Now Unfortunate but his editor changed it.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:09AM
What about sharing your Kickass Torrents password?
Yes, we are amused.....
I've always wondered exactly who logs into torrent sites, except for those who seed. Strikes me as not too smart.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:13AM
Competitive types who like records of their seed ratios?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:14AM
Because logging into a website is the most insecure part of a BT download?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gravis on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:30AM
this is just the old buzzard trying to stir things up and it's also a dupe. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Tuesday July 12 2016, @01:13PM
Do please read the short story "The Right To Read [gnu.org]".
That was written in 1997. A bare nineteen years between a crackpot's imagined dystopian future and actuality.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @07:55PM
Far easier to strip everyone of their rights.