UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. DAVID NOSAL
BRIEF
FACTS:
During the time spanning approximately April 1996 to October 2004, David Nosal was employed at Korn/Ferry International (KFI), an executive search firm. David Nosal left the employment of KFI to start his own competing entity. David Nosal convinces his former colleagues, who were authorized to access the databases at KFI, to access confidential information located on KFI’s computer system and transfer same to David Nosal. While former colleagues had authorization to access the confidential data, the company policy at KFI prohibited divulging such information. Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court wrote the appellate court’s ruling for the en banc panel.
ISSUE:
Did the defendant and the co-defendants “exceed[ed] authorized access” under the CFAA when they used valid user names and passwords to gain …show more content…
The court insists that broad view of the laws passed by the congress is a quite undesirable and it points to United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 101 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1988), where the Supreme Court rejected the government’s expansive view of a statute due to the fact that it would "criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity."
The court takes a much narrower view of the CFAA. The Court notes that the Congress must speak more clearly, if it wants to include “misappropriation liability into the CFAA”. The court applies the rule of lenity insisting that it gives both the people and the Congress fair notice. In doing so, the citizens know what constitutes criminal laws and to the Congress as to what its laws criminalizes. In effect the court insists on strict view of the penal laws by narrowing the scope and reach of the
BRIEF
FACTS:
During the time spanning approximately April 1996 to October 2004, David Nosal was employed at Korn/Ferry International (KFI), an executive search firm. David Nosal left the employment of KFI to start his own competing entity. David Nosal convinces his former colleagues, who were authorized to access the databases at KFI, to access confidential information located on KFI’s computer system and transfer same to David Nosal. While former colleagues had authorization to access the confidential data, the company policy at KFI prohibited divulging such information. Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court wrote the appellate court’s ruling for the en banc panel.
ISSUE:
Did the defendant and the co-defendants “exceed[ed] authorized access” under the CFAA when they used valid user names and passwords to gain …show more content…
The court insists that broad view of the laws passed by the congress is a quite undesirable and it points to United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 101 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1988), where the Supreme Court rejected the government’s expansive view of a statute due to the fact that it would "criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity."
The court takes a much narrower view of the CFAA. The Court notes that the Congress must speak more clearly, if it wants to include “misappropriation liability into the CFAA”. The court applies the rule of lenity insisting that it gives both the people and the Congress fair notice. In doing so, the citizens know what constitutes criminal laws and to the Congress as to what its laws criminalizes. In effect the court insists on strict view of the penal laws by narrowing the scope and reach of the