Cybertelecom
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project

Cybercrime Reference

Navigation Links:
- Crime / CFAA
- Hacks
- - Govt Computer
- - Protected Computer
- - Pri Right Action
- - Passwords
- - Blackmail
- - Damage
- Theft of Info
- - Classified Info
- - Govt Info
- - Info from Protected Computers
- Fraud
- Data Retention
- States
- Reference

- Agencies
- Cryptography

Crimes Against Network
- Worms, Viruses, Attacks
- Hackers
- DOS
- Wireless Malware
- Cyberwar
- Network Reliability
- Infrastructure Protection

Crimes Over Network
- CyberStalking
- Fraud
- - Auctions
- - Phishing
- Gambling
- Hoaxes
- ID Theft
- Offensive Words

Info Gathering
- Wiretaps
- CALEA
- ECPA
- FISA
- Forensics
- Carnivore
- Patriot Act
- Data Retention

Emergency
- EAS
- Assessment
- Reliability
- Vulnerabilities

:: Home ::
:: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer ::
:: Sitemap ::

US Code

Amendments

  • Patriot Act
  • National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996

    On June 29, 1995, Senators Kyl, Leahy, and Grassley introduced the NII Protection Act, S. 982. At hearings in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives from Federal law enforcement agencies expressed the need for, and their support of, this bill. Specifically, Attorney General Janet Reno discussed the provisions of S. 982 in her October 30, 1995, responses to written questions in connection with the June 27, 1995, Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh testified about S. 982 during the February 28, 1996, joint hearing with the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee on economic espionage; and U.S. Secret Service Deputy Assistant Director of Investigations Robert Rasor testified about S. 982 during the October 11, 1995, hearing of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on domestic and International Monetary Policy.
          As intended when the law was originally enacted, the Computer Fraud and Abuse statute facilitates addressing in a single statute the problem of computer crime, rather than identifying and amending every potentially applicable statute affected by advances in computer technology. As computers continue to proliferate in businesses and homes, and new forms of computer crimes emerge, Congress must remain vigilant to ensure that the Computer Fraud and Abuse statute is up-to-date and provides law enforcement with the necessary legal framework to fight computer crime. The NII Protection Act will likely not represent the last amendment to this statute, but is necessary and constructive legislation to deal with the current increase in computer crime.
      On June 13, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary first considered the NII Protection Act, S. 982, as an amendment made by Senators Leahy, Kyl, and Grassley to H.R. 1533, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the penalty for escaping from a Federal prison. At that time, with a quorum present, by voice vote, the Committee unanimously accepted the Leahy-Kyl-Grassley amendment to H.R. 1533, and unanimously ordered H.R. 1533, so amended, favorably reported.
          On August 1, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, again accepted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 982 offered by Senator Leahy, on behalf of himself and Senators Kyl and Grassley. The amendment included the provisions in the S. 982, as introduced, with one modification. As discussed in more detail below, the amendment inserted the word ``nonpublic'' before ``computer of a department or agency'' in section 2(1)(C)(I) of the bill. The Leahy-Kyl-Grassley amendment was accepted by voice vote, and the Committee, also by voice vote, then unanimously ordered S. 982, as amended, favorably reported.
    Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act (August 27, 1996)

State Law

Government

Caselaw (select cases)

  • DOJ Computer Intrusion Cases
  • Appellate
    • US v Trotter, No 05-4202 (8th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) (ruling that Salvation Army's computers are protected computers as they are engaged in interstate communications connected to the Internet)
    • Fiber Systems International v. Roehrs, 2006 WL 3378403 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2006) (finding that CFAA authorizes a private right of action for all of its provisions)
    • International Airports Centers v. Citrin, 440 F3d 418 (7th Cir 2006) (company has a cause of action where departing employ deleted files off of laptop and used a trace removal program to scrub the laptop of any vestige of the files)
    • PC Yonkers v. Celebrations the Party and Seasonal Superstore, __ F3d __ (3rd Cir. Nov. 2005) (dismissing claim pursuant to 1030(a)(4) for lack of evidence of anything taken)
    • Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) (facts involved Verio's utilization of a search bot)
    • Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F3d 1066, 1078 (9th Cir 2003)
    • EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003)
    • EFCultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc. , 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001)
      • former employees data-mined former employers website in contravention of confidentiality agreement and TOS
    • US v Middleton 231 F3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2000) (damages)
    • United States v Kevin Mitnick, 145 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir. 1998)
      • KEVIN DAVID MITNICK LICENSEE OF STATION N6NHG IN THE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE FOR RENEWAL OF SATION KEVIN DAVID MITNICK FOR RENEWAL OF AMATEUR RADIO GENERAL CLASS OPERATOR LICENSE. Ordered a hearing on the application. (Dkt No. 01-344). Action by: The Commission. Adopted: 12/11/2001 by ORDER. (FCC No. 01-359). WTB
    • U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 1997)
      • unauthorized browzing aint no crime
      • unauthorized access to IRS database by IRS employee did not constitute a violation of 1030(a)(4) where government failed to establish anything of value was obtained
    • US v. Sablan, 92 F3d 865 (9th Cir. 1996)
    • Brown v. Waddell, 50 F.3d 285, 294 (4th Cir. 1995) (interception of pager signals)
    • United States v. Davis, 978 F.2d 415, 419–20 (8th Cir. 1992) (interception of satellite signals)
    • U.S. v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991)
      • First famous Internet worm from 1988 which led to the establishment of CERT finding that the morris worm fell under the CFAA - "discussing criminal liability for putting a "worm" on the Internet and causing many computer systems to crash.
    • United States v Brown , 925 F2d 1301, 1308 (10th Cir. 1991), where the court held that purely intangible intellectual property, such as a computer program, cannot constitute goods, wares, merchandise, securities, or moneys which have been stolen converted, or taking within the meaning of § 2314."
    • United States v. Stegora, 849 F.2d 291, 292 (8th Cir. 1988).
  • District Court
    • Wilson v Moreau (DRI 2006) (attorneys fees do not count towards $5000 damage threshold)
    • Lockheed Martin Corp v. Speed, Case No 6:05-cv-1580-Orl-31KRS (MDFl Aug 1, 2006) (Defendant did not access computers in excess of authority pursuant to s 1030(a)(4) where defendant copied files while still employed by Lockheed, but prior to departing for a rival firm).
    • SecureInfo Corp. v. Telos Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Va. 2005)
    • Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, L.L.C., 384 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (applying Trespass to Chattels)
    • IMS Inquiry Management Systems v. Berkshire Information Systems , __ FSupp2d __ (SDNY Feb. 23, 2004) (court found a potential cause of auction where a competitor allegedly gained unauthorized access to a password protected online database through the use of a password issued to and obtained from one of plaintiff’s clients)
    • Southwest Airlines v. Farechase, Co., 318 F. Supp. 2d 435 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (applying Trespass to Chattels)
    • Pacific Aerospace & Elecs., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F Supp 2d 1188, 1195 (ED Wash 2003).
    • Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (access to protected network achieved via spoofing so that unauthorized computer appeared authorized)
    • In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y.2001)
      • Court dismissed Computer Fraud and Abuse Act cause of action on grounds that damage caused by cookies did not meet statutory threshold, and that the use of cookies constitutes permissive access
    • In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, 138 F.Supp.2d 1272 (C.D.Cal.2001) (claim that use of cookies violates CFAA dismissed)
      • dismissing claims that cookies violate CFAA but finding a possible cause of action under ECPA’s stored communications provisions
    • Chance v. Avenue A, Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d (W.D.Wash.2001) (claim that use of cookies violates CFAA dismissed)
    • U.S. v. Smith, (D. N.J. May 1, 2001) (David Smith was charged with, and plead guilt to, releasing the Melissa virus and violating 1030(a)(5)(A))
    • Register.com v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D. N.Y. 2000)
      • Register.com had given notice to Verio that Verio did not have permission to data mine Register.com’s DNS database
    • Am. Online, Inc. v. Nat’l Health Care Disc., Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1274 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (degrading network service can constitute damage)
    • Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 FSupp2d 1121 (WD Wash 2000) (defining “protected computers” broadly)
      • "recent amendments to the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act create federal jurisdiction over damage caused to nearly all computers connected to the Internet."
      • "The CFAA was found in this case to provide a civil remedy by a private employer against employees who abuse their authority to access private company information by transmitting it to third parties via Internet email for their own personal advantage."
      • where individual was an employee who copied confidential business information and transmitted it to a competitor, the individual was acting as an agent of the competitor and therefore no longer was acting as an authorized employee, and the copying of the data constituted a breach to the integrity of the network and a loss to the plaintiff which could satisfy the damage thresholds of CFAA.
    • Scott Moulton and Network Installation Computer Services, Inc. v. VC3, Civ. Act. No. 1:00-CV-434-TWT (N.D.Ga. Nov. 6, 2000 ) (Court held that port scan was not actionable under CFAA).
    • eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (applying Trespass to Chattels)
    • Shaw v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. , 91 F. Supp. 2d 926 (E.D. Tex. 1999) where the court permitted a claim to go forward on the basis that faulty code had resulted in data loss.
    • America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998) (AOL TOS against SPAM meant access was unauthorized)
    • North Texas Preventive Imaging, L.L.C. v. Eisenberg 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19990 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 1996) (SA CV 96-71 AHS (EEx))
      • Where plaintiff alleged that defendant placed a disabling code in software without authorization in the license, plaintiff has stated a cause of action for a violation of 1030(a)(5).
      • Sec. IV.A: "On this issue, Senator Leahy stated that the new language would not criminalize the use of disabling code 'when their use is pursuant to a lawful licensing agreement that specifies the conditions for reentry or software disablement.' Although Senator Leahy did not state the converse proposition, i.e., that the bill did criminalize the use of disabling codes which are not specified in a lawful licensing agreement, this is certainly a reasonable implication of the statement. The court has fund nothing in the statute or legislative history to suggest that Congress intended a blanket exemption for the use of time bombs for the CFAA's prohibitions. Rather, time bombs would appear to fall within the statute's proscription on the use of 'codes, information, programs, or commands' to cause harm to protected computer systems. Whether the use of a time bomb is illegal appears to require a case-by-case analysis of the defendant's intent, the type of computer involved, and the resulting harm."
    • US v. Fernandez, 1993 WL 88197 (CDNY): "overruling vagueness objection to 1030(a)(5) and defining the term "federal interest computer""
    • US v. Morris, 728 FSupp 95, 96 (NDNY 1990): "defining elements of crime under 1030(a)(5) (see circuit court)
  • Unauthorized Access

Cybercrimes

1030 Damage

US v. McDaniel (defendant emailed customers of former employer, elucidating them to the security vulnerabilities of the former employee's systems). Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic.

Stored Communications

Christine Souhrada, User Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet 2002 UCLA J.L. & Tech. Notes 22 ("See In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ("Doubleclick"), In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, 138 F.Supp.2d 1272 (C.D.Cal.2001) ("Intuit"), Chance v. Avenue A, Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d [1153] (W.D.Wash.2001) ("Chance")..... The Intuit court held that accessing the cookies on a user's hard drive, even those that the accessing party placed there, could be found to be an unauthorized access under the statute; however, the Doubleclick and Chance courts held that the EPCA did not protect cookies and that the advertising companies in those cases, to whom the cookies belonged, were exempted from the EPCA.")

Public Information

  • Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
  • eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1065 n.11 (N.D. Cal. 2000)
  • Niva Elkin-Koren, Let the Crawlers Crawl: On Virtual Gatekeepers and the Right to Exclude Indexing, 26 U. DAYTON L. REV. 179, 183 (2001)
  • Maureen A. O’Rourke, Property Rights and Competition on the Internet: In Search of an Appropriate Analogy, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 561, 574-80 (2001)

Statistics

Federal Activity

Federal Agencies

Papers

Books

  • John W. Rittinghouse, William M. Hancock, Cybersecurity Operations Handbook, Elsevier Press.
  • David Loudy, Computer Crime, Information Warfare, And Economic Espionage ( Carolina Academic Press 2003)
  • The Transnational Dimension of Cyber Crime and Terrorism, Hoover 2/28/03
  • Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt (editors), RAND 2002
  • The CERT(R) Guide to System and Network Security Practices by Julia H. Allen 
  • Trust in Cyberspace by Fred B. Schneider (Editor), National Research Council (1999) 
  • Inside Internet Security: What Hackers Don't Want You To Know by Jeff Crume 
  • Definitive Guide to Criminal Justice and Criminology on the World Wide Web, The 
  • Hack Attacks Encyclopedia: A Complete History of Hacks, Cracks, Phreaks, and Spies over Time by John Chirillo 
  • The Hacker Ethic by Pekka Himanen, et al 
  • Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier, 1991, by Hafner and Markoff (discusses Kevin Mitnick, Morris Worm, and the German Chaos Computer Club) 
  • Bruce Sterling, The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier, 1992 
  • The Cuckoo's Egg, Clifford Stoll 
  • Michelle Slatalla and Joshua Quittner, Masters of Deception: The Gang that Ruled Cyberspace, 1995 
  • David Freedman and Charles Mann, At Large : The Strange Case of the World's Biggest Internet Invasion, 1997 
  • The Fugitive Game : Online With Kevin Mitnick by Jonathan Littman 

Webcasts & Podcasts

Links

News

 

 

Web services provided by Wyoming.com
: Home : About Us : Contact Us : Sitemap : Discussion : Search : Newsletter : RSS :
: ADA : Broadband : Crime : Copyright : DNS : ECommerce : EGovt : First Amendment : Digital Divide :
: Network Neutrality : Intl : Privacy : Security : SPAM : Statistics : VoIP : Vote : And Much More! :
:: Feedback : Disclaimer ::
© Cybertelecom ::