Contents 1 Protected computers 2 Criminal offenses under the Act 3 Specific sections 4 Notable cases and decisions referring to the Act 4.1 Criminal Cases 4.2 Civil Cases 5 Criticism 5.1 Aaron Swartz 6 Amendments history 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

Protected computers[edit] The only computers, in theory, covered by the CFAA are defined as "protected computers". They are defined under section 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) to mean a computer: exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or any computer, when the conduct constituting the offense affects the computer's use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States... In practice, any ordinary computer has come under the jurisdiction of the law, including cellphones, due to the inter-state nature of most internet communication.[6]

Criminal offenses under the Act[edit] (a) Whoever— (1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); (B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or (C) information from any protected computer; (3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States; (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period; (5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; (B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss. (6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if— (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; (7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any— (A) threat to cause damage to a protected computer; (B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or (C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion[7]

Specific sections[edit] 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): Computer Espionage. This section takes much of its language from the Espionage Act of 1917, with the notable addition being that it also covers information related to "Foreign Relations", not simply "National Defense" like the Espionage Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2): Computer trespassing, and taking government, financial, or commerce info 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(3): Computer trespassing in a government computer 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4): Committing fraud with computer 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5): Damaging a protected computer (including viruses, worms) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6): Trafficking in passwords of a government or commerce computer 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7): Threatening to damage a protected computer 18 U.S.C. § 1030(b): Conspiracy to violate (a) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c): Penalties

Notable cases and decisions referring to the Act[edit] The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is both a criminal law and a statute that creates a private right of action, allowing private individuals and companies to sue to recover damages caused by violations of this law. There have been a number of notable court cases interpreting the CFAA in both criminal and civil cases. Criminal Cases[edit] United States v. Morris (1991), 928 F.2d 504, decided March 7, 1991. After the release of the Morris worm, an early computer worm, its creator was convicted under the Act for causing damage and gaining unauthorized access to "federal interest" computers. The Act was amended in 1996, in part, to clarify language whose meaning was disputed in the case.[8] United States v. Lori Drew, 2008. The cyberbullying case involving the suicide of a girl harassed on myspace. Charges were under 18 USC 1030(a)(2)(c) and (b)(2)(c). Judge Wu decided that using 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) against someone violating a terms of service agreement would make the law overly broad. 259 F.R.D. 449 [9][10] United States v. Collins et al, 2011. A group of men and women connected to the collective Anonymous signed a plea deal to charges of conspiring to disrupt access to the payment website PayPal in response to the payment shutdown to Wikileaks over the Wau Holland Foundation which was part of a wider Anonymous campaign, Operation Payback.[11][12] They later became known under the name PayPal 14. United States v. Aaron Swartz, 2011. Aaron Swartz allegedly entered an MIT wiring closet and set up a laptop to mass-download articles from JSTOR. He allegedly avoided various attempts by JSTOR and MIT to stop this, such as MAC address spoofing. He was indicted for violating CFAA provisions (a)(2), (a)(4), (c)(2)(B)(iii), (a)(5)(B), and (c)(4)(A)(i)(I),(VI).[13] The case was dismissed after Swartz committed suicide in January 2013.[14] United States v. Nosal, 2011. Nosal and others allegedly accessed a protected computer to take a database of contacts from his previous employer for use in his own business, violating 1030(a)(4)[15][16] This is a complex case with two trips to the Ninth Circuit, and another seen as likely after the latest conviction in 2013.[17] United States v. Peter Alfred-Adekeye 2011. Adekeye allegedly violated (a)(2), when he allegedly downloaded CISCO IOS, allegedly something that the CISCO employee who gave him an access password did not permit. Adekeye was CEO of Multiven and had accused CISCO of anti-competitive practices.[18] United States v Sergey Aleynikov, 2011. Aleynikov was a programmer at Goldman Sachs accused of copying code, like high-frequency trading code, allegedly in violation of 1030(a)(2)(c) and 1030(c)(2)(B)i-iii and 2. This charge was later dropped, and he was instead charged with theft of trade secrets and transporting stolen property.[19][20] United States v Nada Nadim Prouty, circa 2010.[21] Prouty was an FBI and CIA agent who was prosecuted for having a fraudulent marriage to get US residency. She claims she was persecuted by a U.S. attorney who was trying to gain media coverage by calling her a terrorist agent and get himself promoted to a federal judgeship.[22] United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, 2011. Kramer was a court case where a cellphone was used to coerce a minor into engaging sex with an adult. Central to the case was whether a cellphone constituted a computer device. Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that a cell phone can be considered a computer if "the phone perform[s] arithmetic, logical, and storage functions", paving the way for harsher consequences for criminals engaging with minors over cellphones.[23] United States v. Kane, 2011. Exploiting a software bug in a poker machine does not constitute hacking[24] because the poker machine in question was not a “protected computer” under the statute (not being connected to the Internet it was judged not to qualify as "protected computer" affecting interstate commerce) and because the sequence of button presses that triggered the bug were considered "not exceed their authorized access." As of November 2013[update] the defendant still faces a regular wire fraud charge.[25] Civil Cases[edit] Theofel v. Farey Jones, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 17963, decided August 28, 2003 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), holding that the use of a civil subpoena which is "patently unlawful," "in bad faith," or "at least gross negligence" to gain access to stored email is a breach of both the CFAA and the Stored Communications Act.[26] International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin, 2006, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i), in which Jacob Citrin deleted files from his company computer before he quit, in order to conceal alleged bad behavior while he was an employee.[27] LVRC Holdings v. Brekka, 2009 1030(a)(2), 1030(a)(4), in which LVRC sued Brekka for allegedly taking information about clients and using it to start his own competing business.[28][29] Craigslist v. 3Taps, 2012. 3Taps was accused by Craigslist of breaching CFAA by circumventing an IP block in order to access Craigslist's website and scrape its classified ads without consent. In August 2013, US federal judge found 3Taps's actions violated CFAA and that it faces civil damages for “unauthorized access”. Judge Breyer wrote in his decision that "the average person does not use “anonymous proxies” to bypass an IP block set up to enforce a banning communicated via personally-addressed cease-and-desist letter".[30][31] He also noted "Congress apparently knew how to restrict the reach of the CFAA to only certain kinds of information, and it appreciated the public v. nonpublic distinction — but [the relevant section] contains no such restrictions or modifiers."[32] Lee v. PMSI, Inc., 2011. PMSI, Inc. sued former employee Lee for violating the CFAA by browsing Facebook and checking personal email in violation of the company's acceptable use policy. The court found that breaching an employer's acceptable use policy was not "unauthorized access" under the act and, therefore, did not violate the CFAA. Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz and Hotz v. SCEA, 2011. SCEA sued "Geohot" and others for jailbreaking the PlayStation 3 system. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Hotz violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c) ([by] taking info from any protected computer). Hotz denied liability and contested the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.[33] The parties settled out of court. The settlement caused Geohot to be unable to legally hack the PlayStation 3 system furthermore. Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union 2011. Pulte Homes brought a CFAA suit against the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA). After Pulte fired an employee represented by the union, LIUNA urged members to call and send email to the company, expressing their opinions. As a result of the increased traffic, the company's email system crashed.[34][35]

Criticism[edit] Provisions of the CFAA that effectively make it a federal crime to violate the terms of service of Internet sites have been criticized for allowing companies to forbid legitimate activities such as research, or remove protections found elsewhere in law. Terms of service can be changed at any time without notifying users. Tim Wu called the CFAA “the worst law in technology”.[36] Aaron Swartz[edit] The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service’s user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute. Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties. When our laws need to be modified, Congress has a responsibility to act. A simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations. I will introduce a bill that does exactly that. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Jan 15, 2013 [37] Wikisource has original text related to this article: Rep Zoe Lofgren Introduces Bipartisan Aaron's Law In the wake of the prosecution and subsequent suicide of Aaron Swartz (who hacked into MIT computer networks to download scholarly research articles funded by taxpayers and was later criticised), lawmakers proposed amending the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Representative Zoe Lofgren drafted a bill that would help "prevent what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users".[37] Aaron's Law (H.R. 2454, S. 1196[38]) would exclude terms of service violations from the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and from the wire fraud statute, despite the fact that Swartz was not prosecuted based on Terms of Service violations.[39] In addition to Lofgren's efforts, Representatives Darrell Issa and Jared Polis (also on the House Judiciary Committee) raised questions about the government's handling of the case. Polis called the charges "ridiculous and trumped up," referring to Swartz as a "martyr."[40] Issa, chair of the House Oversight Committee, announced an investigation of the Justice Department's prosecution.[40][41] By May 2014, Aaron's Law was stalled in committee, reportedly due to tech company Oracle's financial interests.[42] Aaron's Law was reintroduced in May 2015 (H.R. 2454, S. 1030[43]) and again stalled.

Amendments history[edit] 2008[1] Eliminated the requirement that information must have been stolen through an interstate or foreign communication, thereby expanding jurisdiction for cases involving theft of information from computers; Eliminated the requirement that the defendant’s action must result in a loss exceeding $5,000 and created a felony offense where the damage affects ten or more computers, closing a gap in the law; Expanded 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) to criminalize not only explicit threats to cause damage to a computer, but also threats to (1) steal data on a victim's computer, (2) publicly disclose stolen data, or (3) not repair damage the offender already caused to the computer; Created a criminal offense for conspiring to commit a computer hacking offense under section 1030; Broadened the definition of “protected computer” in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) to the full extent of Congress’s commerce power by including those computers used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication; and Provided a mechanism for civil and criminal forfeiture of property used in or derived from section 1030 violations.

See also[edit] Defense Secrets Act of 1911 / Espionage Act of 1917 / McCarran Internal Security Act 1950 California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act Electronic Communications Privacy Act LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka In re DoubleClick Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson Information technology audit Information technology security audit Computer fraud The Hacker Crackdown (mentions the law, & the eponymous Chicago task force) Protected computer WikiLeaks Weev

References[edit] ^ a b c Jarrett, H. Marshall; Bailie, Michael W. (2010). "Prosecution of Computer Crimes" (PDF). Office of Legal Education Executive Office for United States Attorneys. Retrieved June 3, 2013.  ^ H.R. Rep. 98-894, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3689, 3696 (1984). ^ "SECURING CYBERSPACE - President Obama Announces New Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal and Other Cybersecurity Efforts". January 13, 2015. Retrieved January 30, 2015.  ^ "Democrats, Tech Experts Slam Obama's Anti-Hacking Proposal". Huffington Post. January 20, 2015. Retrieved January 30, 2015.  ^ "Obama, Goodlatte Seek Balance on CFAA Cybersecurity". US News. January 27, 2015. Retrieved January 30, 2015.  ^ Varma, Corey. "What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act". Retrieved 10 June 2015.  ^ Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. "18 USC 1030".  ^ United States v. Morris (1991), 928 F.2d 504, 505 (2d Cir. 1991). ^ U.S. v. Lori Drew, scribd ^ US v Lori Drew, KYLE JOSEPH SASSMAN, ^ David Gilbert (December 6, 2013). "PayPal 14 'Freedom Fighters' Plead Guilty to Cyber-Attack". International Business Times.  ^ Alexa O'Brien (December 5, 2013). "Inside the 'PayPal 14' Trial". The Daily Beast.  ^ See Internet Activist Charged in M.I.T. Data Theft, By NICK BILTON New York Times, July 19, 2011, 12:54 PM, as well as the Indictment ^ Dave Smith, Aaron Swartz Case: U.S. DOJ Drops All Pending Charges Against The JSTOR Liberator, Days After His Suicide, International Business Times, January 15, 2013. ^ U.S. v. Nosal,, 2011 ^ Appeals Court: No Hacking Required to Be Prosecuted as a Hacker, By David Kravets, Wired, April 29, 2011 ^ Kravets, David (April 24, 2013). "Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking". Wired.  ^ US v Adekeye Indictment. see also Federal Grand Jury indicts former Cisco Engineer By Howard Mintz, 08/05/2011, Mercury News ^ US v Sergey Aleynikov, Case 1:10-cr-00096-DLC Document 69 Filed 10/25/10 ^ Ex-Goldman Programmer Described Code Downloads to FBI (Update1), David Glovin and David Scheer - July 10, 2009, Bloomberg ^ Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. via ^ Sibel Edmond's Boiling Frogs podcast 61 Thursday, 13. October 2011. Interview with Prouty by Peter B. Collins and Sibel Edmonds ^ "United States of America v. Neil Scott Kramer" (PDF).  ^ Poulsen, Kevin (May 7, 2013). "Feds Drop Hacking Charges in Video-Poker Glitching Case". Wired.  ^ No Expansion of CFAA Liability for Monetary Exploit of Software Bug | New Media and Technology Law Blog ^ "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Provide Cause of Action for Plaintiff | Stanford Center for Internet and Society". Retrieved September 10, 2010.  ^ US v Jacob Citrin, ^ U.S. v Brekka 2009 ^ Kravets, David, Court: Disloyal Computing Is Not Illegal, Wired, September 18, 2009. ^ Kravets, David (August 20, 2013). "IP Cloaking Violates Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Judge Rules". Wired.  ^ Craigslist v. 3taps | Digital Media Law Project ^ 3Taps Can't Shake Unauthorized Craigslist Access Claims - Law360 ^ See the links to the original lawsuit documents which are indexed here ^ 2011 8 9, Mike Masnick, "Sending Too Many Emails to Someone Is Computer Hacking" ^ Hall, Brian, Sixth Circuit Decision in Pulte Homes Leaves Employers With Few Options In Response To Union High Tech Tactics, Employer Law Report, 3 August 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2013. ^ Christian Sandvig and Karrie Karahalios (2006-07-01). "Most of what you do online is illegal. Let's end the absurdity". The Guardian.  ^ a b Reilly, Ryan J. (January 15, 2013). "Congresswoman Introduces 'Aaron's Law' Honoring Swartz". Huffington Post.  ^ H.R. 2454 at; H.R. 2454 at GovTrack; H.R. 2454 Archived November 12, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. at OpenCongress. S. 1196 at; S. 1196 at GovTrack; S. 1196 Archived November 12, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. at OpenCongress. ^ ^ a b Sasso, Brendan. "Lawmakers slam DOJ prosecution of Swartz as 'ridiculous, absurd' - The Hill's Hillicon Valley". Retrieved 2013-01-16.  ^ Reilly, Ryan J. (January 15, 2013). "Darrell Issa Probing Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz, Internet Pioneer Who Killed Himself". Retrieved 2013-01-16.  ^ Dekel, Jonathan (May 1, 2014). "Swartz doc director: Oracle and Larry Ellison killed Aaron's Law". Postmedia.  ^ H.R. 1918 at Congress.govS. 1030 at

External links[edit] 18 U.S.C. § 1030, text of the law Cybercrime: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 1030 and Related Federal Criminal Laws, by Charles Doyle, CRS, 12 27 2010, ( v t e Patriot Act Titles I – II – III – IV – V – VI – VII – VIII – IX – X Statute legislative and judicial history History of the Patriot Act Acts modified Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 Electronic Communications Privacy Act Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Money Laundering Control Act Bank Secrecy Act Right to Financial Privacy Act Fair Credit Reporting Act Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Victims of Crime Act of 1984 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act People George W. Bush John Ashcroft Alberto Gonzales Patrick Leahy Orrin Hatch Jon Kyl Dianne Feinstein Viet D. Dinh Joe Biden Michael Chertoff Barack Obama Eric Holder Jim Dempsey Chuck Schumer Lamar Smith Bob Graham Jay Rockefeller Arlen Specter Mike Oxley Dick Armey Paul Sarbanes Trent Lott Tom Daschle Russ Feingold Ellen Huvelle Ron Paul Lisa Murkowski Ron Wyden Dennis Kucinich Larry Craig John E. Sununu Richard Durbin Bernie Sanders Jerrold Nadler John Conyers, Jr. Butch Otter Government organizations Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Justice Select Committee on Intelligence Department of the Treasury FinCEN Department of State National Institute of Standards and Technology Customs Service U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Non-government organizations American Civil Liberties Union American Library Association Center for Democracy and Technology Center for Public Integrity Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Humanitarian Law Project Retrieved from "" Categories: 1986 in American law98th United States CongressComputing legislationHacking (computer security)Information technology auditUnited States federal commerce legislationFraud legislationFraud in the United StatesUnited States federal computing legislationHidden categories: Webarchive template wayback linksArticles containing potentially dated statements from November 2013All articles containing potentially dated statementsUnited States federal legislation articles without infoboxes

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version In other projects Wikinews Languages Português Edit links This page was last edited on 4 December 2017, at 12:16. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.260","walltime":"0.334","ppvisitednodes":{"value":3874,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":58945,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":3109,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":12,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":2,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 275.001 1 -total"," 52.91% 145.516 1 Template:Reflist"," 19.82% 54.510 8 Template:Cite_web"," 14.90% 40.982 10 Template:Cite_news"," 8.61% 23.667 1 Template:Wikisource"," 8.15% 22.426 1 Template:Sister_project"," 7.57% 20.826 1 Template:As_of"," 7.30% 20.075 1 Template:Side_box"," 7.28% 20.017 12 Template:Uscsub"," 6.57% 18.076 1 Template:DMCA"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.085","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3571037,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1244","timestamp":"20171213100022","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":91,"wgHostname":"mw1325"});});

Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act - Photos and All Basic Informations

Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act More Links

Title 18 Of The United States CodeComprehensive Crime Control Act Of 1984WarGamesMatthew BroderickTitle 18 Of The United States CodeUSA PATRIOT ActBarack ObamaRICO ActDEF CONCloudflareRon WydenZoe LofgrenProtected ComputerTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeEspionage Act Of 1917Title 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeImplied Cause Of ActionUnited States V. Morris (1991)Morris WormComputer WormUnited States V. Lori DrewCyberbullyingMyspaceTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTerms Of ServicePayPal 14Anonymous (group)WikileaksWau Holland FoundationOperation PaybackUnited States V. Aaron SwartzAaron SwartzJSTORMAC Address SpoofingSuicideUnited States V. NosalProtected ComputerCisco SystemsCISCOCisco IOSMultivenAnti-competitiveSergey AleynikovGoldman SachsHigh-frequency TradingTrade SecretNada Nadim ProutyUnited States V. Neil Scott KramerSoftware BugPoker MachineInternetInterstate CommerceWire FraudStored Communications ActInternational Airport Centers, L.L.C. V. CitrinTitle 18 Of The United States CodeData ErasureLVRC Holdings V. BrekkaCraigslist V. 3TapsCraigslistIP Address BlockingWeb ScrapingCharles R. BreyerAnonymous ProxiesCease-and-desist LetterLee V. PMSI, Inc.Acceptable Use PolicySony Computer Entertainment America V. George HotzPrivilege EscalationTitle 18 Of The United States CodeProtected ComputerHack (computer Security)PlayStation 3Pulte Homes, Inc. V. Laborers' International UnionPulte HomesLaborers' International Union Of North AmericaLabor UnionTelephone CallEmailEmail ServerCrash (computing)Terms Of ServiceTim WuZoe LofgrenWikisourceAaron SwartzZoe LofgrenTerms Of ServiceDarrell IssaJared PolisHouse Judiciary CommitteeUnited States House Committee On Oversight And Government ReformOracle CorporationTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTitle 18 Of The United States CodeDefense Secrets Act Of 1911Espionage Act Of 1917McCarran Internal Security ActCalifornia Comprehensive Computer Data Access And Fraud ActElectronic Communications Privacy ActLVRC Holdings LLC V. BrekkaIn Re DoubleClickMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority V. AndersonInformation Technology AuditInformation Technology Security AuditComputer FraudThe Hacker CrackdownProtected ComputerWikiLeaksWeevWhitehouse.govHuffington PostUS NewsUnited States V. Morris (1991)International Business TimesThe GuardianUnited States CongressGovTrackWayback MachineOpenCongressUnited States CongressGovTrackWayback MachineOpenCongressThehill.comUnited States CongressUnited States CongressTitle 18 Of The United States CodeTemplate:Patriot ActTemplate Talk:Patriot ActPatriot ActPatriot Act, Title IPatriot Act, Title IIPatriot Act, Title IIIPatriot Act, Title IVPatriot Act, Title VPatriot Act, Title VIPatriot Act, Title VIIPatriot Act, Title VIIIPatriot Act, Title IXPatriot Act, Title XHistory Of The Patriot ActOmnibus Crime Control And Safe Streets Act Of 1968Electronic Communications Privacy ActForeign Intelligence Surveillance ActFamily Educational Rights And Privacy ActMoney Laundering Control ActBank Secrecy ActRight To Financial Privacy ActFair Credit Reporting ActImmigration And Nationality Act Of 1952Victims Of Crime Act Of 1984Telemarketing And Consumer Fraud And Abuse Prevention ActGeorge W. BushJohn AshcroftAlberto GonzalesPatrick LeahyOrrin HatchJon KylDianne FeinsteinViet D. DinhJoe BidenMichael ChertoffBarack ObamaEric HolderChuck SchumerLamar SmithBob GrahamJay RockefellerArlen SpecterMike OxleyDick ArmeyPaul SarbanesTrent LottTom DaschleRuss FeingoldEllen Segal HuvelleRon PaulLisa MurkowskiRon WydenDennis KucinichLarry CraigJohn E. SununuDick DurbinBernie SandersJerrold NadlerJohn ConyersButch OtterFederal Bureau Of InvestigationUnited States Department Of JusticeUnited States House Permanent Select Committee On IntelligenceUnited States Department Of The TreasuryFinancial Crimes Enforcement NetworkUnited States Department Of StateNational Institute Of Standards And TechnologyUnited States Customs ServiceU.S. Immigration And Customs EnforcementAmerican Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Library AssociationCenter For Democracy And TechnologyCenter For Public IntegrityElectronic Frontier FoundationElectronic Privacy Information CenterHumanitarian Law ProjectHelp:CategoryCategory:1986 In American LawCategory:98th United States CongressCategory:Computing LegislationCategory:Hacking (computer Security)Category:Information Technology AuditCategory:United States Federal Commerce LegislationCategory:Fraud LegislationCategory:Fraud In The United StatesCategory:United States Federal Computing LegislationCategory:Webarchive Template Wayback LinksCategory:Articles Containing Potentially Dated Statements From November 2013Category:All Articles Containing Potentially Dated StatementsCategory:United States Federal Legislation Articles Without InfoboxesDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link