On December 1, 2015, President Obama signed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) into law. CISA is meant to encourage companies to share information about cyber threats with the government, but critics argue that it will instead lead to more widespread government surveillance.
One particularly controversial aspect of CISA is its provisions relating to computer hacking. Under CISA, companies can share information about cyber threats with the government, including information about computer hacks. The government can then use this information to prosecute the hackers.
Critics argue that this provision will lead to more government surveillance, as companies will be more likely to share information about computer hacks with the government if they know that the government can use that information to prosecute the hackers. They argue that this provision will also lead to more prosecutions of innocent people, as the government will be able to use information about computer hacks to prosecute anyone who was involved in the hack, even if they were not the ones who actually hacked the computer.
Supporters of CISA argue that the computer hacking provisions are necessary in order to protect against cyber threats. They argue that the government needs the ability to prosecute hackers in order to deter people from hacking into computers.
The computer hacking provisions of CISA are sure to be a topic of debate in the coming years. Critics of CISA argue that these provisions will lead to more government surveillance and more prosecutions of innocent people. Supporters of CISA argue that these provisions are necessary in order to protect against cyber threats.
Contents
What does the CFAA prohibit?
What does the CFAA prohibit?
The CFAA prohibits certain activities that relate to computer hacking.
Specifically, the CFAA prohibits unauthorized access to a computer, as well as the unauthorized use of a computer.
The CFAA also prohibits the transmission of a program, code, or command that intentionally causes damage to a computer or that results in the unauthorized access of a computer.
What does the CFAA apply to?
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a United States federal law that prohibits unauthorized access to computers and computer networks. The CFAA was enacted in 1986, and has been amended numerous times since then.
The CFAA applies to a wide range of activities, including the unauthorized access of computers, the unauthorized access of computer networks, the unauthorized transmission of information to a computer, and the unauthorized interception of electronic communications.
The CFAA also prohibits the use of false names or identification information in connection with any of these activities.
Violations of the CFAA can result in civil and criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.
What was the decision in Van Buren v United States?
In 1837, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Van Buren v United States. The question before the Court was whether a presidential veto could be overruled by Congress.
The case arose out of a dispute between President Andrew Jackson and Congress over a bill that would have provided relief for people who had lost money in a failed bank. President Jackson vetoed the bill, but Congress overruled his veto.
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could override a presidential veto. The Court explained that the veto power was not granted to the president in the Constitution, but rather was a power that had been inherited from the British Parliament.
Did Van Buren violate the CFAA?
In March of this year, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a decision in United States v. Van Buren, in which it considered whether the defendant had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
The CFAA is a federal law that criminalizes certain types of computer-related activity. In Van Buren, the defendant was accused of violating the CFAA by accessing a computer without authorization.
The court found that the defendant had not violated the CFAA. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the defendant had not accessed the computer for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized access.
This decision is important because it provides some guidance on what conduct is prohibited by the CFAA.
What is a CFAA violation?
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a federal law that criminalizes certain types of computer-related activity. The CFAA is a broad law that can be used to prosecute a wide range of computer-related offenses.
CFAA violations can include accessing a computer without authorization, damaging a computer, or stealing information from a computer. CFAA violations can also include using a computer to commit a crime, such as fraud or identity theft.
CFAA violations are punishable by fines and imprisonment. The severity of the punishment depends on the severity of the crime and on the defendant’s criminal history.
CFAA violations are investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
What are the two key phrases for violations of the CFAA?
The CFAA is a federal law that governs computer crime. It contains a number of provisions that prohibit various activities, including accessing a computer without authorization and hacking.
There are two key phrases that are used to violate the CFAA: “access without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access”. These phrases are defined in the law as follows:
“Access without authorization” means to gain access to a computer without permission to do so. This may be done either by circumventing security measures or by entering the computer without proper authorization.
“Exceeds authorized access” means to use a computer in a way that exceeds the permission that has been granted to you. This could include accessing information that you are not authorized to see, or using the computer for a purpose that is not authorized.
Did Van Buren win his case?
In 1837, Martin Van Buren was elected president of the United States, but his election was later contested by Hugh White. White argued that the election was not fair because Van Buren had used money from the government to help his campaign. In 1838, the case went to the Supreme Court. The court decided that Van Buren had not broken any laws and that he was the rightful president.
