Enacted by Congress in 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) builds upon existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030). Initially, the CFAA was intended to limit federal jurisdiction to cases “with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.” Notably, the CFAA criminalized certain computer-related acts such as distribution of malicious software code, propagating denial of service attacks as well as trafficking in passwords and similar items. Recently, the CFAA has gained prominence as a bludgeon used to prosecute a wide-range of activities, some broadly labelled “hacking” and other stretching the boundaries of “unauthorized” computer access.

Two recently introduced bills, one by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in the House and one by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in the Senate aim to amend the CFAA in hopes of ameliorating application of the CFAA to claims of breach of terms of service, employment agreements. Additionally, with the nickname “Aaron’s Law,” they also seek to limit what some see as the CFAA’s tendency to allow for overzealous prosecution that they claim characterized Aaron Swartz’s case.

In short the bills would amend the meaning of “exceeds authorized access,” changing it to “access without authorization,” which is defined to mean:

“to obtain information on a protected computer”;
“that the accesser lacks authorization to obtain”; and
“by knowingly circumventing one or more technological or physical measures that are designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining that information.”

For a well-documented discussion of the application and boundaries of the CFAA, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundations Legal Treatise on civil and criminal cases involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act here.

As businesses become ever more dependent on digital assets and systems, a working knowledge of the legal and regulatory framework that defines and protects those assets is paramount.

If you or your executive teams has questions about securing and protecting digital assets, please feel free to contact David M. Adler for a free consultation. LSGA advises a wide range of businesses on creating, protecting and leveraging digital assets as well as computer, data and information security and privacy.

Please tweet, comment on, and forward is article!

David M. Adler | Leavens, Strand, Glover & Adler, LLC
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2550
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Direct: (866) 734-2568
Direct Fax: (312) 275-7534
http://www.lsglegal.com
http://www.ecommerceattorney.com

*2012 Illinois Super Lawyer http://bit.ly/gFfpAt

Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/adlerlaw
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/adlerlaw

On September 25, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with seven rent-to-own companies that secretly installed software on rented computers, clandestinely collected information, took pictures of consumers in their homes (WTF?!) and tracked these consumers’ locations.

If you haven’t vomited on your computer from the sickening outrage, you can read the FTC press release here.

Software design firm DesignerWare, LLC licensed software to rent-to-own stores ostensibly to help them track and recover rented computers. The software collected the data that enabled rent-to-own stores, including franchisees of Aaron’s, ColorTyme, and Premier Rental Purchase, to track the location of rented computers without consumers’ knowledge

According to the FTC, the software enabled remote computer disabling if it was stolen, or if the renter failed to make payments. It included an add-on purportedly to help stores locate rented computers and collect late payments. Alarmingly, the software also collected data that allowed the rent-to-own operators to secretly track the location of rented computers, and thus the computers’ users.

When activated, the nefarious feature logged key strokes, captured screen shots and took photographs using a computer’s webcam, according to the FTC. It also presented a fake software program registration screen that tricked consumers into providing their personal contact information.

“An agreement to rent a computer doesn’t give a company license to access consumers’ private emails, bank account information, and medical records, or, even worse, webcam photos of people in the privacy of their own homes,” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. “The FTC orders today will put an end to their cyber spying.”

“There is no justification for spying on customers. These tactics are offensive invasions of personal privacy,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

A complete collection of the 38 federal acts governing U.S. information privacy law.

1. Bank Secrecy Act
2. Cable Communications Policy Act
3. CAN-SPAM Act
4. Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
5. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
6. Communication’s Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
7. Computer Security Act
8. DNA Identification Act
9. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
10. Drivers Privacy Protection Act
11. Economic Espionage and Protection of Proprietary Information Act
12. Electronic Communications Privacy Act
13. Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act (ESIGN)
14. Employee Polygraph Protection Act
15. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA)
16. Fair Credit Reporting Act
17. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
18. Federal Computer Crime Act
19. Federal Privacy Act
20. Federal Trade Commission Act
21. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
22. Freedom of Information Act
23. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
24. HIPAA Regulations
25. Identity Theft Assumption and Deterrence Act
26. Medical Computer Crime Act
27. OECD Privacy Guidelines
28. PATRIOT Act
29. PIPEDA Privacy Act
30. Privacy Protection Act
31. Real ID Act
32. Right to Financial Privacy Act
33. Safe Harbor Privacy Principles
34. Telecommunications Act
35. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
36. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
37. Veteran’s Affairs Information Security Act
38. Video Privacy Protection Act

Although courts have called the Internet “one large catalyst for rumor, innuendo, and misinformation,” nevertheless, it provides large amounts of evidence that may be relevant to litigation matters. Increasingly, courts are facing presentation of, and challenges to, data preserved from various websites. According to a survey conducted by the X1ediscovery blog, there are over 320 published cases involving social media/web data in the first half of 2012.

Evidentiary authentication of web-based data, whether it’s Internet site data available through browsers, or social media data derived from APIs or user credentials, presents challenges. Given the growing importance of social media posts and data, businesses should be prepared to offer foundational evidence to authenticate any posts that are vital to a case.

Authentication of social media and web data is a relatively novel issue for many courts. Courts have been extremely strict in applying foundation requirements due to the ease of creating a profile or posting while masquerading as someone else. Therefore it is important to go beyond the surface of a social media profile or a post to provide the foundation necessary to authenticate what he evidence for use in court.

Regardless of the type of data, it must be authenticated in all cases. The authentication standard is found in Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), “The requirement of authentication … is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241, 1249 (10th Cir. 1998).

The foundational requirement of authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. See US v. Tank, 200 F. 3d 627, 630 (9th Circuit 2000) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 901(a)). This burden is met when “sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity.” This burden was met where the producer of chat room web logs explained how he created the logs with his computer and stated that the printouts appeared to be accurate representations. Additionally, the government established the connection between the defendant and the chat room log printouts based on IP addresses.

See also, Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc. (C.D.Cal.2002) 213 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1154, and Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, 241 F.R.D. 534, 546 (D.Md. May 4, 2007) (citing Perfect 10, and referencing additional elements of “circumstantial indicia” for authentication of electronic evidence).

Clearly, there is an emerging trend in the use of social media and web data as evidence. As the use of this type of evidence increases, so too will the consistency and predictability of the foundational matters required by courts. Thus, businesses are well advised to include web collection and social media support in the investigation process so they are prepared to offer the necessary foundational evidence to authenticate any social media posts that may be vital to a case.

20120809-214100.jpg

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,228 other followers

%d bloggers like this: