Law360 has published a useful discussion by Eric Welsh and Sarah Fulton of a split in authority in the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The CFAA is a statute that provides for both criminal and civil claims for persons who have “knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, . . .” Id. § 1030(a)(1). ”In the context of an employee that steals data from a computer, the question under this statute is whether that person’s access to the computer was ‘without authorization’ . . . .[but] in the absence of a clear definition, courts in the United States have struggled to define the circumstance where a person acts ‘without authorization.’” In the context of employee misappropriation, courts have approached the interpretation of “without authorization” in two ways: Read the rest of this entry »
Posts Tagged ‘Legal Information’
Split in Authority re Interpretation of “Without Authorization” in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”)In CFAA on September 4, 2010 at 9:08 am
In a positive development for both plaintiffs and defendants, a bill establishing an expedited jury trial procedure has sailed through the California Legislature. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog and The Recorder reported today that Assembly Bill No. 2284 was approved by the legislature on a unanimous vote. The bill, entitled the Expedited Jury Trials Act, was introduced by Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa). It calls for the establishment of strealined jury trials in civil cases, where the parties stipulate to them. Some of the highlights:
- Waiver of all rights to appeal, motions for directed verdict, and post-trial motions;
- Only 3 hours per side to present its case;
- Jury sizes of 8 or fewer, with no alternates, and only 3 peremptory challenges;
- Provision for high/low agreements: (i.e., a voluntarily agreement specifying a minimum and maximum amount of damages, regardless of the ultimate verdict issued returned by the jury).