- Crime / CFAA
- - Govt Computer
- - Protected Computer
- - Pri Right Action
- - Passwords
- - Blackmail
- - Damage
- Theft of Info
- - Classified Info
- - Govt Info
- - Info from Protected Computers
- Data Retention
- - White House
- - DHS
- - NIST
- - NTIA
- - FCC
Crimes Against Network
Crimes Over Network
Patriot Act National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996
On June 29, 1995, Senators Kyl, Leahy, and Grassley introduced the NII Protection Act, S. 982. At hearings in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives from Federal law enforcement agencies expressed the need for, and their support of, this bill. Specifically, Attorney General Janet Reno discussed the provisions of S. 982 in her October 30, 1995, responses to written questions in connection with the June 27, 1995, Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh testified about S. 982 during the February 28, 1996, joint hearing with the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee on economic espionage; and U.S. Secret Service Deputy Assistant Director of Investigations Robert Rasor testified about S. 982 during the October 11, 1995, hearing of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on domestic and International Monetary Policy.
As intended when the law was originally enacted, the Computer Fraud and Abuse statute facilitates addressing in a single statute the problem of computer crime, rather than identifying and amending every potentially applicable statute affected by advances in computer technology. As computers continue to proliferate in businesses and homes, and new forms of computer crimes emerge, Congress must remain vigilant to ensure that the Computer Fraud and Abuse statute is up-to-date and provides law enforcement with the necessary legal framework to fight computer crime. The NII Protection Act will likely not represent the last amendment to this statute, but is necessary and constructive legislation to deal with the current increase in computer crime.
On June 13, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary first considered the NII Protection Act, S. 982, as an amendment made by Senators Leahy, Kyl, and Grassley to H.R. 1533, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the penalty for escaping from a Federal prison. At that time, with a quorum present, by voice vote, the Committee unanimously accepted the Leahy-Kyl-Grassley amendment to H.R. 1533, and unanimously ordered H.R. 1533, so amended, favorably reported.
On August 1, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, again accepted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 982 offered by Senator Leahy, on behalf of himself and Senators Kyl and Grassley. The amendment included the provisions in the S. 982, as introduced, with one modification. As discussed in more detail below, the amendment inserted the word ``nonpublic'' before ``computer of a department or agency'' in section 2(1)(C)(I) of the bill. The Leahy-Kyl-Grassley amendment was accepted by voice vote, and the Committee, also by voice vote, then unanimously ordered S. 982, as amended, favorably reported.
Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act (August 27, 1996)
USDOJ, The National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1995 www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/s982.htm.
Caselaw (select cases)
US v. McDaniel (defendant emailed customers of former employer, elucidating them to the security vulnerabilities of the former employee's systems). Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic.
Christine Souhrada, User Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet 2002 UCLA J.L. & Tech. Notes 22 ("See In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ("Doubleclick"), In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, 138 F.Supp.2d 1272 (C.D.Cal.2001) ("Intuit"), Chance v. Avenue A, Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d  (W.D.Wash.2001) ("Chance")..... The Intuit court held that accessing the cookies on a user's hard drive, even those that the accessing party placed there, could be found to be an unauthorized access under the statute; however, the Doubleclick and Chance courts held that the EPCA did not protect cookies and that the advertising companies in those cases, to whom the cookies belonged, were exempted from the EPCA.")
Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1065 n.11 (N.D. Cal. 2000) Niva Elkin-Koren, Let the Crawlers Crawl: On Virtual Gatekeepers and the Right to Exclude Indexing, 26 U. DAYTON L. REV. 179, 183 (2001) Maureen A. O’Rourke, Property Rights and Competition on the Internet: In Search of an Appropriate Analogy, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 561, 574-80 (2001)