SCOTUS Just Screwing with us in 6-3 findings

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a case that led to a 6-3 decision with Amy Comey Barrett penning the opinion, one might be susceptible to the 'gut' based feeling it was a partisan decision. However, CJ Roberts, J. Thomas, and J. Alito dissented. The case at hand was about whether improperly using data one has legal access to violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The majority said it didn't, which does kind of make me wonder that the "Abuse" part of the Act is referring to.

The relevant provision of the CFAA, Barrett wrote, “covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer — such as files, folders, or databases — to which their computer access does not extend. It does not cover those who, like Van Buren, have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them.”The six-justice majority consisted of three conservatives (Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett) and the court’s three liberals (Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

It is an interesting decision, especially based on the justices that were in the majority. In general, the younger justices said it was fine, the older ones naught. I look forward to the next curveball from SCOTUS.

 

[Gospel]

As long as I can still hack my Single Player RPG games to roleplay as God, I'm cool.

 

[zorq]

In this case, for example, the police officer, Nathan Van Buren, lawfully accessed computerized license-plate records, but his use of the information for a private purpose led to the federal criminal prosecution that the court has now rejected.

So this police officer used his computer database to stalk some people in his personal life.

Does this mean IRS assholes can just run the tax records of every match they get on tinder without worry? Maybe it's okay for an army officer to use a field artillery unit to drop the kids off at school? Or maybe use it to "dig" out that pesky tree stump behind their house?

IRS guy's computer is connected to a database. Army guy's computer is connected to a tactical missile system. What's the difference?

 

[KeepTalking]

Seems like the correct decision to me. If a person has legal access to the data, it seems they should not be criminally charged for accessing that data. They may be charged for doing illegal things with the data they accessed, but that would be a different thing. I can also see civil charges for breach of contract, as they likely signed an agreement saying that they would not use the data for personal and / or illegal purposes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seems like the correct decision to me. If a person has legal access to the data, it seems they should not be criminally charged for accessing that data. They may be charged for doing illegal things with the data they accessed, but that would be a different thing. I can also see civil charges for breach of contract, as they likely signed an agreement saying that they would not use the data for personal and / or illegal purposes.

It sounds like a case where the law didn't cover all the situations it should have covered. His actions should have been illegal but the court (I think correctly) concluded that the law as written didn't apply. Congress, fix the law!

 

[KeepTalking]

Seems like the correct decision to me. If a person has legal access to the data, it seems they should not be criminally charged for accessing that data. They may be charged for doing illegal things with the data they accessed, but that would be a different thing. I can also see civil charges for breach of contract, as they likely signed an agreement saying that they would not use the data for personal and / or illegal purposes.

It sounds like a case where the law didn't cover all the situations it should have covered. His actions should have been illegal but the court (I think correctly) concluded that the law as written didn't apply. Congress, fix the law!

I don't know the particulars of this case, but it could be a case of "throwing the book at them", and overcharging as a result. As long as there are laws that cover his illegally using the data to which he had legal access, I don't think the law needs to fixed. If this is the only law he was charged with violating, however, I agree that they should go back and fix it.