FACTS: David Nosal was a self-employed entrepreneur who opened a business mimicking his former employer Korn/Ferry’s business strategy. Korn/ Ferry operated an executive search firm, which employed several workers, who were given access to the company computer systems with the use of log in credentials. This granted employees access to critical business information, such as names and contact information for clients and others. Nosal, now a direct competitor of Korn/Ferry, asked some of Korn/Ferry employees to use their computer privileges, to access and obtain pertinent information, then supply the information to him in order to gain a competitive edge. Further, Korn/Ferry had a previously established policy in place, which prevented employees
…show more content…
The impact of the CFAA laws in the government’s broad terms, would, “criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity,” in turn affecting millions of individuals with the term “exceeds authorized access,” in which the court did not agree with United States v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2011). The court considered that if Congress created the law with the intention to criminalize millions of citizens, the language used in the statute would have been more clearly worded and concise. This interpation would have granted Korn/Ferry the power to federally charge all employees who misused the company’s computer systems, by exceeding their authorized access. Since the company grants access to computer systems for business purposes, checking personal e-mails or reading the news, could be considered misuse, or exceeding authorized access, and punishable by federal law. The court sided with Nosal’s interpretation of a more narrow approach to the term exceeding authorized access. By this perspective, the courts viewed the Korn/Ferry as providing access to employees to their databases, who in turn, then misused the information that was obtained from the company legitimately. Further, the courts relied on the ruling of LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F. 3d 1127 (9th Cir.2009) which discussed the CFAA …show more content…
Congress’s intent with the CFAA was to focus on computer hackers who use means like back-door access, stolen identification, or computer attacks to steal information. In United States v. Nosal, none of these criminal activities occurred. Employees were given privileges, allowing legally access to information in the company’s databases, and should not be considered as hackers or cyber criminals, as the CFAA was intended. The CFAA’s intent does not accurately depict the crime that occurred in United States v. Nosal, and the law should not be applied or interpreted to fit the crime, much as the federal government had tried. The access granted to the computer systems by the employer to the employees was legitimate, and the violation only occurred when the employees decided to misuse the given information by giving it to
The impact of the CFAA laws in the government’s broad terms, would, “criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity,” in turn affecting millions of individuals with the term “exceeds authorized access,” in which the court did not agree with United States v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2011). The court considered that if Congress created the law with the intention to criminalize millions of citizens, the language used in the statute would have been more clearly worded and concise. This interpation would have granted Korn/Ferry the power to federally charge all employees who misused the company’s computer systems, by exceeding their authorized access. Since the company grants access to computer systems for business purposes, checking personal e-mails or reading the news, could be considered misuse, or exceeding authorized access, and punishable by federal law. The court sided with Nosal’s interpretation of a more narrow approach to the term exceeding authorized access. By this perspective, the courts viewed the Korn/Ferry as providing access to employees to their databases, who in turn, then misused the information that was obtained from the company legitimately. Further, the courts relied on the ruling of LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F. 3d 1127 (9th Cir.2009) which discussed the CFAA …show more content…
Congress’s intent with the CFAA was to focus on computer hackers who use means like back-door access, stolen identification, or computer attacks to steal information. In United States v. Nosal, none of these criminal activities occurred. Employees were given privileges, allowing legally access to information in the company’s databases, and should not be considered as hackers or cyber criminals, as the CFAA was intended. The CFAA’s intent does not accurately depict the crime that occurred in United States v. Nosal, and the law should not be applied or interpreted to fit the crime, much as the federal government had tried. The access granted to the computer systems by the employer to the employees was legitimate, and the violation only occurred when the employees decided to misuse the given information by giving it to