<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Computer Fraud</title>
	<atom:link href="http://computerfraud.us/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://computerfraud.us</link>
	<description>by Nick Akerman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:43:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why Two District Courts Dismissed Valid Computer Fraud and Abuse Claims for Lack of Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/why-two-district-courts-dismissed-valid-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-for-lack-of-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/why-two-district-courts-dismissed-valid-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-for-lack-of-jurisdiction#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Data Protection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two federal district courts, one in Maryland and the other in Texas, dismissed what each court considered to be valid civil claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The CFAA is the federal computer crime statute that provides a civil cause of action to “any person who suffers damage <a href="http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/why-two-district-courts-dismissed-valid-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-for-lack-of-jurisdiction" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/why-two-district-courts-dismissed-valid-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-for-lack-of-jurisdiction/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United States Chess Federation Embroiled in Computer Fraud Prosecution</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/united-state-chess-federation-embroiled-in-computer-fraud-prosecution</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/united-state-chess-federation-embroiled-in-computer-fraud-prosecution#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Data Protection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 <a href="http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/united-state-chess-federation-embroiled-in-computer-fraud-prosecution" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/data-protection/united-state-chess-federation-embroiled-in-computer-fraud-prosecution/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conn. District Court Refuses to Dismiss Computer Fraud and Abuse Claims Against Ex-Employee</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/conn-district-court-refuses-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-an-ex-employee</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/conn-district-court-refuses-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-an-ex-employee#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Recent Updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 <a href="http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/conn-district-court-refuses-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-an-ex-employee" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/conn-district-court-refuses-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-an-ex-employee/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DC and Iowa District Courts Take Opposing Views as to Whether Employees Are Liable Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/dc-and-iowa-district-courts-take-opposing-views-as-to-whether-employees-are-liable-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/dc-and-iowa-district-courts-take-opposing-views-as-to-whether-employees-are-liable-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:21:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Recent Updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 <a href="http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/dc-and-iowa-district-courts-take-opposing-views-as-to-whether-employees-are-liable-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/dc-and-iowa-district-courts-take-opposing-views-as-to-whether-employees-are-liable-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Court Grants Summary Judgment to Cisco Systems on Computer Fraud and Abuse Claim, Holding that Brekka Does Not Apply to Ex-Employees</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/california-court-grants-summary-judgment-to-cisco-systems-on-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claim-holding-that-brekka-does-not-apply-to-ex-employees</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/california-court-grants-summary-judgment-to-cisco-systems-on-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claim-holding-that-brekka-does-not-apply-to-ex-employees#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Recent Updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week a federal district court in California granted Cisco Systems, Inc. summary judgment on its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) claim against an ex-employee who “on multiple occasions and without authorization, . . . used a Cisco employee&#8217;s password to gain access to Cisco&#8217;s computer systems and download Cisco&#8217;s proprietary and copyrighted software.” <a href="http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/california-court-grants-summary-judgment-to-cisco-systems-on-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claim-holding-that-brekka-does-not-apply-to-ex-employees" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/california-court-grants-summary-judgment-to-cisco-systems-on-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claim-holding-that-brekka-does-not-apply-to-ex-employees/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two District Courts in the Second Circuit Follow Brekka To Dismiss Computer Fraud and Abuse Claims against Employees</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/two-district-courts-in-the-second-circuit-follow-brekka-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-employees</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/two-district-courts-in-the-second-circuit-follow-brekka-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-employees#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Recent Updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week two federal district courts, one in Connecticut and the other in Manhattan, followed LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2009) in dismissing Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) claims brought against employees who stole company data. In neither case did the plaintiff company employer rely on company computer <a href="http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/two-district-courts-in-the-second-circuit-follow-brekka-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-employees" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/two-district-courts-in-the-second-circuit-follow-brekka-to-dismiss-computer-fraud-and-abuse-claims-against-employees/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dismissal of CFAA Claim for Lack of Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/articles/dismissal-of-cfaa-claim-for-lack-of-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/articles/dismissal-of-cfaa-claim-for-lack-of-jurisdiction#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The National Law Journal July 5, 2010 An ALM publication Daily updates at NLJ.COM Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, plaintiff must properly specify a $5,000 loss or case will be tossed. BY NICK AKERMAN The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is the omnibus federal computer crime statute outlawing theft and destruction of data, <a href="http://computerfraud.us/articles/dismissal-of-cfaa-claim-for-lack-of-jurisdiction" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/articles/dismissal-of-cfaa-claim-for-lack-of-jurisdiction/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No New i-Phone 4 for Convicted CFAA Felon Randal Craig</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/articles/no-new-i-phone-4-for-convicted-cfaa-felon-randal-craig</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/articles/no-new-i-phone-4-for-convicted-cfaa-felon-randal-craig#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One person you will not see waiting in line to buy the new i-Phone 4 at the Apple Store is Randall Craig who pleaded guilty to violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (“CFAA”).  Craig, a subcontractor at the Marine Corps Reserve Center, communicated by email with an undercover FBI agent posing as a <a href="http://computerfraud.us/articles/no-new-i-phone-4-for-convicted-cfaa-felon-randal-craig" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/articles/no-new-i-phone-4-for-convicted-cfaa-felon-randal-craig/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Investigating Ways to Make Website More Secure Constitutes Loss Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/articles/investigating-ways-to-make-website-more-secure-constitutes-loss-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/articles/investigating-ways-to-make-website-more-secure-constitutes-loss-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal court in Ohio last week held that the cost of investigating ways to make a website more secure after an authorized access into the website in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) constitutes “loss” to meet the $5,000 jurisdictional amount for loss under the CFAA.  Jedson Engineering, Inc. v. Spirit <a href="http://computerfraud.us/articles/investigating-ways-to-make-website-more-secure-constitutes-loss-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/articles/investigating-ways-to-make-website-more-secure-constitutes-loss-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Court:  CFAA Does Not Apply to Company Executives</title>
		<link>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/new-york-court-cfaa-does-not-apply-to-company-executives</link>
		<comments>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/new-york-court-cfaa-does-not-apply-to-company-executives#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Akerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Recent Updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerfraud.us/?p=424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A New York court held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (“CFAA”) prohibition against unauthorized access does not apply to corporate executives who stole confidential and proprietary information from the company computers because, as company executives, they had been “granted unfettered access to . . . [the company’s] computer system and information residing on <a href="http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/new-york-court-cfaa-does-not-apply-to-company-executives" rel="bookmark">[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/new-york-court-cfaa-does-not-apply-to-company-executives/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
