Posts Tagged access

Why is PNC Bank Accusing Morgan Stanley of Corporate Espionage and Trade Secret Theft?

I often write about corporate espionage and trade secrets but I bet some of you may still be trying to imagine real-world scenarios that demonstrate exactly what those terms mean and how they apply. Let me tell you a story and see if it helps it make more sense. Let’s Talk About Your Business Let’s say […]

, , , , , ,

3 Comments

Yes, Texas is a good state for plaintiffs to bring a CFAA claim.

Is Texas a good state for a plaintiff to bring a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) claim? Yes it is, and a recent case reaffirms that the Federal District Courts in Texas are generally favorable jurisdictions for plaintiffs with CFAA claims because of two key issues, access and loss jurisprudence. On February 3, 2014, the […]

, , , , , ,

1 Comment

Sixth Circuit: Unknown Access of a Remote Server Cannot Be Intentional, Thus Does Not Violate CFAA

Does a person violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing a remote computer without authorization if he is not aware that he is even accessing that remote computer? The Sixth Circuit says no. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits the intentional access of a computer without authorization. When a defendant is not […]

, , ,

Leave a comment

Hacker Sentenced to 5 Months Under CFAA for Hacking SodaHead.com Accounts

A Kentucky man was convicted of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for hacking into specific accounts on the website sodahead.com and replacing purported racist and homophobic content with less offensive content. Michael Pullen was able to hack into the accounts by exploiting a software vulnerability. The man was sentenced to 5 months in […]

, , , ,

2 Comments

Loss and Damage Are Not Interchangeable Under CFAA–District Court Blows Right Past CFAA’s “Loss” Requirement in Sysco Corp. v. Katz

In denying a motion to dismiss a civil Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim, a district court found that a departing employee’s purported cover-up of nefarious activity by deleting e-mails from his “sent” and “deleted items” folders on Plaintiffs’ computer system was sufficient to allege damage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i) which provision, however, does not address the issue […]

, , , , , , ,

5 Comments