Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/54611331/US-v-Nosal-10-10038-9th-Cir-Apr-28-2011
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:54:33+00:00

Document:
9th Circuit holds that access of an employer's computer contrary to an employer's authorization violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
the District of Utah, sitting by designation.
on the use of the information.
1036, 1041 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008).
twelve monthly payments of $25,000.
Korn/Ferry employees to help him start a competing business.
tion, except for legitimate Korn/Ferry business. . . .
criminal prosecution. . . .
(emphasis added) (third alteration in original).
10, and 11, alleging violations of the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C.
1349. These rulings are not before us.
fraud, and obtained something of value.
with a fraudulent intent.3 The government appealed.
trict court’s interpretation of a federal statute. United States v.
Boren, 278 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir. 2002).
puter that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” Id.
duly enacted by Congress. See Corley v. United States, 129 S.
Relying primarily on International Airport Centers, LLC v.
pret a criminal statute in such an unexpected manner.
tion even if the employee acts with a fraudulent intent.
ceeds authorized access” language from the statute entirely.
Id. (emphasis added) (second alteration in original).
employee has violated — or “exceeded” — those limitations.
existence of access restrictions instituted by the employer.
the statutory language and the core rationale of Brekka.
employer determines whether an employee is authorized. Id.
violates those limitations. It is as simple as that.
is subject to prosecution under § 1030. Id. at 271.
Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 583-84 (1st Cir.
tions, without more, is not a crime under § 1030(a)(4).
and 4-7 of the superseding indictment.
vague, I must respectfully dissent.
§ 1030(a)(2)(C), which has no intent requirement.
interstate or foreign commerce or communication . . . .”).
restrictions, is guilty of a federal crime under § 1030(a)(2)(C).
discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S.
the language of those restrictions.
arbitrary enforcement, rendering it unconstitutionally vague.
and related doctrines.” Drew, 259 F.R.D. at 451.
tion. All manner of situations will be covered . . . .
computer use policy to know what conduct could be criminally punished.
in a manner that does not result in its invalidity. Zadvydas v.
ing § 1030(a)(2)(C) of the statute unconstitutionally vague.
ings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2010).
crime that existing criminal laws were insufficient to address.
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.
Cops/Politician....etc Moral Increased as No Action As Group ..Result?? Social Evils Entry..A very Serious Issue Might highlight the Fact?? A Death???Then Public Trust on both would be??

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 1030
 v. 
 § 1030

§ 1030
 § 1030
 v. 
 v.

 § 1030
 v.