Submitted via IRC for fyngyrz
It's no secret that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a mess. Originally written by a confused and panicked Congress in the wake of the 1980s movie War Games, it was supposed to be an "anti-hacking" law, but was written so broadly that it has been used over and over again against any sort of "things that happen on a computer." It has been (not so jokingly) referred to as "the law that sticks," because when someone has done something "icky" using a computer, if no other law is found to be broken, someone can almost always find some weird way to interpret the CFAA to claim it's been violated. The two most problematic parts of the CFAA are the fact that it applies to "unauthorized access" or to "exceeding authorized access" on any "computer... which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communications." In 1986 that may have seemed limited. But, today, that means any computer on the internet. Which means basically any computer.
[...] There is a case happening now, brought by some researchers and journalists, trying to get the CFAA declared unconstitutional for making scraping of the open internet a crime. On Friday, in a little-noticed, but highly-entertaining ruling [pdf], the district court let the case proceed, but also made some important points about the CFAA, making it clear that the law should be narrowly applied (which actually harms the "is this unconstitutional" question, since the more limited the law is, the less likely it's unconstitutional).
Related Stories
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/charges-against-journalist-tim-burke-are-a-hack-job/
Caitlin Vogus is the deputy director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment lawyer. Jennifer Stisa Granick is the surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. The opinions in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of Ars Technica.
Imagine a journalist finds a folder on a park bench, opens it, and sees a telephone number inside. She dials the number. A famous rapper answers and spews a racist rant. If no one gave her permission to open the folder and the rapper's telephone number was unlisted, should the reporter go to jail for publishing what she heard?
If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. And yet, add in a computer and the Internet, and that's basically what a newly unsealed federal indictment accuses Florida journalist Tim Burke of doing when he found and disseminated outtakes of Tucker Carlson's Fox News interview with Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, going on the first of many antisemitic diatribes.
[...]
According to Burke, the video of Carlson's interview with Ye was streamed via a publicly available, unencrypted URL that anyone could access by typing the address into your browser. Those URLs were not listed in any search engine, but Burke says that a source pointed him to a website on the Internet Archive where a radio station had posted "demo credentials" that gave access to a page where the URLs were listed.The credentials were for a webpage created by LiveU, a company that provides video streaming services to broadcasters. Using the demo username and password, Burke logged into the website, and, Burke's lawyer claims, the list of URLs for video streams automatically downloaded to his computer.
And that, the government says, is a crime. It charges Burke with violating the CFAA's prohibition on intentionally accessing a computer "without authorization" because he accessed the LiveU website and URLs without having been authorized by Fox or LiveU. In other words, because Burke didn't ask Fox or LiveU for permission to use the demo account or view the URLs, the indictment alleges, he acted without authorization.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:13AM (7 children)
Ambulance chasers are now supplemented by computer chasers, so the actual legislation is buried by the search engines. However, some jurisdictions also add an additional felony for having used a computer to commit another crime. Places like Colorado or Michigan, to name two, have very broad laws in that area. There's a lot of potential for prosecutorial overreach there seeing as all mobile phones are basically very, very powerful portable computers with a baseband processor and OS on the side.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:20AM (6 children)
So, hacking a victim using an IoT-enabled-axe will increase the penalty?
Daaam!... and this company was offering such a big discount for the tool and services, and now I need to drop my plans to upgrade my old axe.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by canopic jug on Thursday April 05 2018, @08:04AM (5 children)
Probably. I expect to see the laws abused in that way, based on how other laws like the CFAA have been abused.
But you don't need a new axe anyway. I still have my great grandfather's axe and it works fine. It's been through a bunch of handles and two heads but is still working like new.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Thursday April 05 2018, @03:14PM (4 children)
So, what you're saying is, it's not your great grandfather's axe, then.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 05 2018, @04:25PM (3 children)
His great-grandfather had to give up the axe, just because he kept on breaking it and replacing parts?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday April 05 2018, @04:39PM (2 children)
No, as in it's not the same axe his great-grandfather used. Since, both pieces of the axe have been replaced at some point in time. Presumably by someone other than the great-grandfather.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 05 2018, @04:44PM (1 child)
"Presumably" is what I was highlighting.
You're assuming, when maybe canopic's family has been carefully using the axe within tolerances, in a way the ancestor didn't.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday April 05 2018, @06:03PM
Possibly, but the likelihood is that both heads and multiple handles weren't replaced by the one user. Though, perhaps it's a relic and no-one, but the great-grandfather actually made much use of it.
Then again, you could be an AI that trolls the internet for all I know. Likelihood, you're not.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:49AM (2 children)
Oh, this offends liberals, guess we gotta abolish this amendment too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @02:44PM (1 child)
How stupid are you really? It's OK, you can trust us, we won't put you in a cattle car I swear!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @04:11PM
He's a paid shill who is struggling to understand the article enough to make his post quota.