Talk:Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Untitled
What the heck is this? Random notes? Very messy. --mav 22:19 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's apparently moved content from USA PATRIOT Act. I think it should remain there, rather than splitting that page up. Evercat 22:20 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree, or at the very least moved to a title that references a law more specifically than "the law". --Delirium 00:40 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Possible Identy Theft
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.94.68 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

tagged quality
the section defining what is illegal is ... well.. where did it come from? it doesnt list the subparagraphs and it uses different language than what the actual law uses. Decora (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding relevant info to notable cases section
I see there's a bit of an edit war going on here. I see pros and cons in both positions. Discussing here is what talk pages for. CarolMooreDC 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No intention to edit war - was just reverting what seemed like an unsafe removal of referenced content. But fully agreed that it should be discussed further if there is a reason why that content needs further attention. Bonusballs (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The page will of course read as if it takes a position, if we include pro-defendant positions by advisors, attorneys, etc. along with the facts. Let's stick to the facts of each case in the overview, until such time as the cases warrant their own pages.  As an encyclopedia, we should not endorse any particular point of view.  CarthCarsen (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Carth. I notice that you have again removed valid, referenced information from this article, citing an 'NPOV violation'. Perhaps you are indeed new to Wikipedia so it should be mentioned that this kind of activity is not polite and is generally discouraged. Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy - see WP:NPOV (the blue writing means that you can click on it to read more) - clearly indicates that maintaining a neutral point of view involves reflecting all viewpoints which can be reliably sourced. An article does not take one position or another purely through the actions of mentioning the various points of view that exist. Your actions, in removing some of these views, actually damage the neutral point of view that you are claiming to protect. In future, when making controversial edits, it's best to discuss such things on the talk page first, and achieve a concensus of other editors, before removing such material. Does this seem fair to you? Bonusballs (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your approach is obviously to begin with the assumption that a prosecution is wrongful, and support the inclusion of statements to that effect. I apologize if you think my deletion was impolite-- your reversion was moreso.  If you don't want to edit-war, don't follow me around reverting my edits.  The inclusion of commentary from one side and not the other shows a clear bias; the effect will be to suggest to readers that Wikipedia considers a case to have been incorrectly brought.  If you would like to include such pro-defense commentary in a case that was settled, you must find some pro-prosecution commentary as well.  Sorry-- bias is bias, no matter how much it might grate sometimes when we would like to express our own. CarthCarsen (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You mischaracterise my approach - it does not presume that a prosecution is wrongful to reflect concern or denial by the accused or associated parties. It's called balance. If you feel that undue weight has been placed on 'the other side' by the inclusion of one referenced sentence, while the prosecution's case is not adequately described in the FOUR sentences preceding it, then maybe you should be finding and adding references rather than removing them? Bonusballs (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An obviously better approach is not to commit NPOV violations in the first place. In this scenario that would involve adding information in a balanced way. CarthCarsen (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember that the only act I have performed here is to revert your REMOVAL of referenced content. I argue that the content which you removed was not an NPOV violation in the slightest - indeed, that your removal of the same makes the paragraph more one-sided than it otherwise could be. Do you see the point I'm making? Bonusballs (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is invalid, sorry. The case was settled; the defendant pled guilty.  There is no way in hell that the info on the case is more biased without the unbalanced comment by his advisor, with a reference to an official body to give it more oomph, giving moral approbation to his action.  If placed in a more full context, so that a reader could understand the situation fully, it would probably be fine.  CarthCarsen (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that putting in a comment by "One of his advisors" which is not verified in the source (or by another WP:RS) as being an official adviser is problematic. However, a brief account of the defense of a charged person or their lawyer should be allowed, including that one if that was it. The article could add he didn't do time and use a ref. CarolMooreDC 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited the intro using a more reliable source
I did some digging and found a 2010 Justice Department manual that specifically goes over the history and origins of the CFAA. I was shocked to find that everything I'd seen floating around on how the CFAA came to be was off, and a little surprised that the overview for the CFAA was sourced from a Huffington Post article. I probably should have stopped by here before doing a huge edit- I see there's been a bit of conflict over this article. I hope I've added a bit of credibility (and referenced it all correctly) anyway. Carmenellie (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Intent to edit
I'd like to start work on cleaning up this page, and attempting to get it moved up from start-class. I'm going to start with cleanup of the "notable cases" section. My current plan is to remove any case that's not published (unless there is compelling reason to leave one in), add proper case citations (and links to the text for each case), and try to clean up each summary. If I get through that, I'll start on the more substantive portion of the article. I don't expect the initial changes to be controversial, but given that the CFAA is controversial in some circles, I wanted to make sure there were no major objections to this approach. MikeDunford (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Specific proposed changes:
 * General point - the list of cases should probably be split between civil and criminal.


 * General point - pending/dropped cases that are relevant to critiques that law lends itself to prosecution overreach should go in own section.


 * General point - several of these cases are not legally notable, and I'm unclear on their relevance. For example, why is it worth noting that someone pled guilty to a count of a CFAA violation in a plea deal in a case where the primary charges were espionage related?


 * Cases I propose removing from list (first cut)


 * United States v. Riggs. - this case should be removed from this article. It was initially charged (in part) under the CFAA, but the CFAA charges were dropped in the superseding indictment. The CFAA was not, as a result, significantly important to the outcome of the case or to either of the two published trial court decisions.


 * Robbins v. Lower Merion School District - my inclination is to remove this from the article. The CFAA was definitely an issue, but it was one of many involved in the case, and because the case ultimately settled it does not provide any real guidance about the law.


 * People v. SCEA - having trouble finding this case. Only reference currently provided triggers Vodafone net nanny software. Will remove unless I can find more reliable source.


 * United States v. Drake - not notable that someone pled guilty to a CFAA violation as part of plea deal in case focused on other charges.


 * United States v. Manning - pending case. Suggest removing at least until it is clear that the case will go to court martial on the CFAA charges and specifications.


 * Grand Jury investigation in Cambridge - it's not a case, and it's not clear how much is reliably known about the proceedings.

If there are no comments/objections, I'll start making changes at some point tomorrow. MikeDunford (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

what about this case regarding hacking? I think it should be listed. I would like to see information on how the government prosecutes some of these cases, and how often it takes a long long time. Not really on topic. Its important thought. A speedy trial rarely happens. Why is this? We all should be concerned, that we all get a fair trial and a speedy trial. As anything less than speedy is basically holding people hostage, at the cost of taxpayers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.213.17.227 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102251/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102253/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s1196/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s1196/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange Edit Comment
Can you please explain the edit comment for this edit whose only effect was to italicize Section 1030 and seems to have nothing to do with the Mueller Report and/or its redactions:
 * original section 1030 ... via Mueller Report (currently some redactions): B. "Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations" (page 175) of V. "PROSECUTION AND DECLINATION DECISIONS")

It sounds like either WP:OR or like your comment was meant to go with some other edit related to current events. Quite confusing. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the "Section 1030" have specifically to do with the history of "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act"? If the bolding is/was confusing, feel free to remove the bolding.  My is ES was partly a note to myself as to why I came here.  "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" is far more broad than the Mueller Report and my ES wasn't intend to confuse you (note to myself).  My apologies.  X1\ (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaning. Now I understand:  Just personal note to yourself.  I have no problem with the italics:  It makes it easier to read.
 * Unfortunately, the edit summary doesn't explain why you chose to italicize it, making it seem like the Mueller Report and/or the redacted sections somehow was part of the reason for the italics, which makes no sense at all. :)  That's why I was confused.
 * In the future, if you want to make a personal comment like that in your edit summary that everyone else should disregard, I suggest you make that clearer and make it easy to distinguish the purpose of the your edit from how you ended up to the page. Maybe something like:
 * Italicize section 1030 for clarity; I became interested in this article after reviewing Mueller Report (currently some redactions): B. "Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations" (page 175) of V. "PROSECUTION AND DECLINATION DECISIONS"
 * Does that sound reasonable? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. X1\ (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures
— Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)