You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Re andrecc >(Sean BP) § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection
Ok..my thoughts...
but first please be aware
THIS POST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY
that said..for fun i'll tell you how this reads to me as a person who isn't a usa lawyer.
(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
Axl's data is not relating to national defence, foreign relations or subejct to an executve order. Not applicable.
, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
I don't know what that is...but I suspect that it would relate to atomic secrets and so on....and thus is not applicable to Axl.
The rest of the paragraph all refers to situations involving that data that as has been established is not the data in question here.
(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) 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.);
Unless it's banking records that were hacked I presume the data does not count under this section.
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
Axl's computer is not a US gov computer. Not applicable
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(C) information from any protected computer;
This might apply...but then if you look at what it means to be a 'protected computer' :
(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer—
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) 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;
So axl's computer is not used for US government or banking business...so the first part does not apply.
The second part could maybe apply..depending on how they define foreign commerce. Maybe because GNR tour overseas you could push that the lap top was used for foreign trade? I suspect you'd have to check out case law to see if there's any idea about what those words mean precisely.
But my reading the way it needs to effect the communication of "the United States" makes it sound like formal governement business and not private enterprises.
So from that I doubt Axl's computer is a 'protected computer'. Or it seems a stretch.
(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;
This wasn't a governement computer.
(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;
Again depends on if Axl's computer is considered a 'protected computer' under this law.
(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;
Sounds like that's for viruses and tampering which didnt occur.
(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.[1]
Again...is this a protected computer?
(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; [2]
My reading of that is it's about selling/exchanging a password or ability to access a computer...not what happened here.
(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;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
Again this all applies to 'protected computers' which it seems from the defination above may not include the computer(s) hacked in this case.
I could continue, but to my amatuer eyes I can't see what part of the statute applies....it's all about protecting US Govenerment, banking and trade computers...not private citizens as far as i can see.
I might very well be wrong. Love to see someone elses analysis and see if i'm missing something.
Again this is not legal advice from me but I'm simply responding to this post out of interest and for something to do.