A longish thread on Van Buren: Where does it leave the CFAA?
Here's a first cut.
The computer hacking statute, the CFAA, prohibits two things: access without authorization, and exceeds authorized access. Access without authorization is understood to require some kind of breaking in. The question here is whether exceeds authorized access does, too.
As I read the new decision, the Court says yes -- exceeding authorized access also requires some breaking in. The court agrees with the defendant's claim that the two prohibitions are similar -- at just different stages. The Court calls this a "gates-up-or-down" inquiry.
There's a lot to be said about the traffic stop of Lieutenant Caron Nazario, but one of them is that it makes this 2015 blog post unfortunately relevant again:
"Sandra Bland and the 'Lawful Order’ Problem."
(Given the paywall, I'll include screenshots.) washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-co…
The interview above was recorded in 1997, and none of it has ever been shown outside my family before. At some point I'm going to make a full length edited video of it to post on Youtube (it was 5+ hours long, so it needs to be shortened). But, for now, this excerpt.
When a father consented to a search of his "son's account" on their jointly used computer, investigators exceeded the scope of consent when they searched the recycle bin, which included files from multiple users. Child porn found there is suppressed. wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/Dis…#N
The forensic tool used to search the computer grouped the deleted files from all accounts in the same place, the recycle bin, without indicating from which account a particular file had originated. Acc to the court, using the tool to search that was beyond the scope of consent.
This case touches on a question that I cover in my computer crime law casebook and discuss in my class: How do you apply consent principles to computer searches when people consent in regular-user-speak but forensic analysts think in forensic-tool-speak?
Many, myself included, have expressed amusement (or horror) about how splintered and long the 5th Circuit's decision is. Perhaps worth noting that at least some of that may reflect the fact that it's a facial challenge.
Some background: Most constitutional arguments are "as applied" challenges, in which a person will claim the government did something unconstitutional. But some challenges are "facial" challenges, in which the challenge is to the statute itself.
With "as applied" challenges, there's usually an ultimate ruling: Is the action constitutional or unconstitutional? But facial challenges can be more complicated, because the challenger may challenge several different parts of the statute, on different rationals.
How does the 4th Amendment apply to the "U.S. Private Vaults" case, busting the Beverly Hills store where people could anonymously store guns and drugs (and anything else)?
First, the alleged facts. The store hosted safe deposit boxes at a strip mall. Their selling point was total privacy: You pay big $$$, and you can store anything there and no one will know. According to prosecutors, the business was trying to entice those engaged in crimes.
The store didn't want to know who its customers were. They just wanted the very large payments in exchange for privacy. I gather this is their website, and Youtube plug: