recent US Supreme Ct decision established narrow interpretation of computer hacking act USC 1030. jdsupra.com/legalnews/supr…
It is relevant to Assange extradition, which relied on 8 year statute of limitations for 1030. I discussed issue in 2019
It is relevant to Assange extradition, which relied on 8 year statute of limitations for 1030. I discussed issue in 2019
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1117875294147203072
The recent decision pointed to a split in circuit courts on broadness of Computer Fraud Act. 
3/ in my 2019 commentary on Manning and Assange cases, I had noted that the same inconsistency between circuit courts was critical to Assange extradition:
4/ the military court which heard Manning's case observed that the Manning case was the first occasion that issue had arisen in military courts and noted inconsistency in circuit courts.
5/ according to facts in indictment, Manning only accessed SIPRnet files to which he/she had authorized access, but sought to disguise identity under which access was obtained.
6/ statute of limitations under USC 1028 (the logical charge) was 5 years; but DOJ contorted itself into pretzels to charge 1030 (to utilize its 8-year statute of limitations.)
7/ but since UK court issues its decision on Assange extradition in January (on narrow and contested ground of health, thus avoiding decision on substance), US Supreme Court substantially narrowed scope of USC 1030, relied on in Assange extradition claim.
8/ seems to me like Assange legal team should bring this Supreme Court decision to attention of UK court and challenge UK court to address substantial issue in light of this important interpretation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
