I guess the guy couldn't take it anymore. At least someone's exposing fake news!!

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

We need to not encourage criminal activity as defined as (Web Link the “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act”

Yes there are some exceptions to the act (Web Link if you read:

What are the undecided issues in this area of the law?

The undecided issues currently surrounding the CFAA, which is both a criminal and civil statute although today I’m only going to speak to the civil aspect of the law because we don’t have a criminal practice here at Ad Astra. But the number one unsettled area regarding the CFAA is about circumvention of a technical access barrier whether or not the law requires such a thing. The words technical access barrier don’t actually appear in the text of the law. The law only talk’s about authorized access versus unauthorized access versus access in excess of your authority. Technical access barrier doesn’t appear anywhere. However, it has been an open issue because there are some courts that make a determination that there’s no liability for the defendant because he or she did not circumvent a technical access barrier. But then many other courts have recognized that technical access barrier not only does it not appear in the statutory text it also is a moving target and it makes it very hard to make sense of the problem.

For instance, in this case US vs. Nosel that the Ninth Circuit has addressed several times the defendant there used a password in order to access data. He used to work for the company whose data was accessed. HE didn’t hack into the system but what he did was he took a password from a current employee and used that to get in. AND HIS ARGUMENT, WHICH IS BEFORE THE NINTH CIRCUIT IS I DIDN’T VIOLATE THE CFAA BECAUSE I HAD THE KEYS TO THE CASTLE. And the open question is well; if you took the key from somebody who had the key knowing that you are not supposed to have the key, even if it was easy for you to get the key is that still a violation of the CFAA. We filed an amicus brief in a case that was pending before the Ninth Circuit arguing that technical access barrier doesn’t make sense. Not only is not in the statutory text but it’s also going to be a moving target. We’ve all seen how fast technology improves and changes and it would just be very difficult for litigants and courts to keep up with whatever the latest trend is in technology.”

However, this individual was not an employee, he used attacks to gain access to accounts there were not his to do the damage he did. So it would appear on its face, this particular person is a criminal.

Wow, I spent all morning at the USDC in San Jose as a prospective juror on this case, but was the last person excused from the panel. Either they didn't like that I used to be a lawyer or that I know the Publisher. I've always wanted to serve on a jury.