Monthly Archives: August 2010
United States Chess Federation Embroiled in Computer Fraud Prosecution
Last week the federal district court in Northern California downgraded felony Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) counts to misdemeanors against Gregory Alexander who is charged with accessing “on thirty-four separate occasions . . . without authorization, the Yahoo! email account of Randall Hough, one of the board members of the United States Chess Federation (“USCF”).” U.S. v. Alexander, 2010 WL 3238961 *1 (N.D. Ca. Aug. 16, 2010). In opposing Alexander’s motion to dismiss the felony counts, the government’s papers described “how Alexander’s action were part of an internal power struggle among the USCF members.” In reviewing the indictment the … [ Continue reading ]
Conn. District Court Refuses to Dismiss Computer Fraud and Abuse Claims Against Ex-Employee
Without referencing the conflicting positions between LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2009) and Int’l Airport Centers LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420 (7th Cir.2006) a Connecticut federal district court refused to dismiss Computer Fraud and Abuse claims brought by an employer against an ex-employee. In Monson v. The Whitby School, Inc., 2010 WL 3023873 (D. Conn. August 2, 2010) Dr. Michelle Monson, former head of the Whitby School, sued her prior employer, the Whitby School, for sex discrimination. The Whitby School counterclaimed against her for violations of the CFAA. The Whitby School alleged … [ Continue reading ]
DC and Iowa District Courts Take Opposing Views as to Whether Employees Are Liable Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
In American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hollander, 2010 WL 2851639 *1 (N.D. Iowa, July 20, 2010) the court denied the defendant employee’s motion for summary judgment on the Computer Fraud and Abuse (“CFAA”) claim. The plaintiff claimed Hollander, “anticipating terminating his relationship with plaintiff, accessed and used plaintiff’s computer database to aid himself in competing with plaintiff.” Id. The court held “that a defendant may act “without authorization” or “exceed authorized access” even when he has permission to access the protected computer, but then uses that information in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiffs interests, where the defendant intended … [ Continue reading ]
