On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), overturning the conviction of a Georgia police officer who searched a police database for a citizen in exchange for money. The court ruled that the officer did not violate federal hacking laws.
The ruling clarifies the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), as well as what types of conduct can be prosecuted. The CFAA became law after the U.S. government found that cybercrime and hacking were not adequately addressed by the law at the time.
Read also: Denmark was helping the US spy on European politicians!
The case arose when the FBI caught former Georgia police officer Nathan Van Burenusing his patrol car computer to access a police database and obtain information about a specific license plate number in exchange for money. During the search, Van Buren used his own, valid credentials.
Following Van Buren's first charge, a U.S. district court convicted him of two counts: i) Violating police department policy for obtaining information from a database for personal use and ii) violating the CFAA by using a computer network in a manner inconsistent with his job.
Van Buren appealed these charges, which ultimately led to the case being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the justices ruled 6-3 in favor of Van Buren, as he had accessed the database using his own valid credentials.
See also: FireEye: Over 1,900 different hacking groups are active today
In making this decision, the judges expressed their decision on whether Van Buren “exceeded his authorized access” when he accessed the database in question.
The three justices who dissented from the ruling in Van Buren's favor – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts – believe that Van Buren violated hacking laws, as he was prohibited from using the computer to obtain license plate information.
Proposal: Chinese hackers spent 3 years developing backdoor to spy on governments
"Van Buren's conduct would only be lawful if he had the right to obtain this specific license plate information with authorized access to the database. But that was not the case. A person has the right to do something only if they have the 'right' to do it," Thomas said.
With the ruling, the CFAA -related charge against Van Buren was dismissed , while the charge of violating department policy remains .
Information source: zdnet.com
