Draft Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Update Expands Powers and Penalties 141
Despite calls to limit the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, it looks like Congress is planning to drastically expand the law and penalties. walterbyrd writes with a few of the major changes listed in the draft bill (22 pages): "Adds computer crimes as a form of racketeering. Expands the ways in which you could be guilty of the CFAA — including making you just as guilty if you plan to 'violate' the CFAA than if you actually did so. Ratchets up many of the punishments. Makes a very, very minor adjustment to limit 'exceeding authorized access.' Expands the definition of 'exceeding authorized access' in a very dangerous way. Makes it easier for the federal government to seize and forfeit anything."
TechCrunch also reports rumors that the plan is to push the bill through quickly for approval with a number of other "cybersecurity" bills in mid-April.
Re:Conservative reaction to shooting foot (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's just a draft, I'm not actually certain who wrote it. It doesn't have a tracking number yet. This being the House, we can infer that the chairman is OK with it, and he's a Republican, but he's not necessarily the author.
The only clue I can find is in a file name included in the document:
C:\DOCUME~1\HRBRAZ~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\SR_005.XML
but I don't see anybody on the committee whose name fits "HRBRAZ~1" (and it's probable that it's somebody's secretary or legislative assistant; it might even be the staffer who's responsible for maintaining the XML [via Softquad, on an elderly Windows installation]).
Re:Fascist America (Score:2, Interesting)
At least with Fascism they told you what they were going to do once they got into power. With the current government there's no publicly acknowledged consistent ideology for why they need all this power. They are amassing all this power, for what?
Re:Write to your representatives! (Score:3, Interesting)
And they can just as easily reply with a form letter
A former staffer once told me the key to getting an actual human being to craft a response. It's possible that in the years since they've clued into this technique, but I doubt it. The key, as he told it, was never to write about a single issue. They had form letters for basically any issue you might care about. If, instead, you wrote about two issues with absolutely no connection, it forced a staffer to craft a response (often from multiple form letters.) If your second issue was really obscure, it might even force them to write portions of the respose.
So write about this law and also express concern for the moose population of southern Alaska and your correspondence will receive a few seconds of their attention instead of the zero that it would otherwise get.
Re:Orin Kerr on draft of new CFAA (Score:2, Interesting)
I was facing multiple felonies for using a computer to "seriously annoy" someone (that is the applicable text of the computer tampering law). I sent a single prank email. Seriously. Not threats of violence or anything just one of those paste-someone's-face-onto-an-embarrasing-image things. I was young and dumb, yes-- but these laws allow your door to be kicked in and your family held at gunpoint for some of the stupidest reasons. I took a plea for a designated misdemeanor, but I have criminal record now that haunts my career paths in IT.
Re:Fascist America (Score:4, Interesting)
'Securitisation chain' means the bank sold that debt to the capital market. The bank could give money to everybody and the 'share holders' would take all the risk.
Yes, the movie 'Inside job' details how those changes allowed those banks to count money that didn't exist. Just like Enron did.
No. making a profit means they can stay in business. Unbridled greed is not mentioned in the 'Causes of the wealth of nations', the definitive study of the free market.
I'm in the business of acquiring cars. Please arrive home late on Thursday night so I can shoot you and take your car. THAT is 'unbridled greed' and punishable under another law.
As the movie 'Inside job' reveals, Goldman-Sachs created loans they knew would go bad then insured those multiple times. That insurance scam is what ruined the AIG corporation.
Hear, hear! Quoting the parent because I lack mod points, and people should see it. The only "basic rule of capitalism" is to make money, and if fraud isn't prevented, then scams will prevail.