If he had been convicted would he have also been required to pay for the "damage" done to AT&T's computer?
Isn't there something in the CFAA about having to allege causing damage, measurable in financial terms?
Maybe they did not use that provision?
Surely there must be logical reasons I am overlooking, but I find it peculiar that today technology companies can so easily get federal authorities to bring proceedings on their behalf.
Whether it's the DMCA or the CFAA, these "violations" seem like civil matters to me.
Do they harm the public, or do they just (potentially) harm a business?
I thought this opinion was very clearly written and although it only addresses venue, it does have some precedential value for the future of "CFAA law".
For one, if you plan to rely on improper venue as a defense, stay away from the Second Circuit!
Isn't there something in the CFAA about having to allege causing damage, measurable in financial terms?
Maybe they did not use that provision?
Surely there must be logical reasons I am overlooking, but I find it peculiar that today technology companies can so easily get federal authorities to bring proceedings on their behalf.
Whether it's the DMCA or the CFAA, these "violations" seem like civil matters to me.
Do they harm the public, or do they just (potentially) harm a business?
I thought this opinion was very clearly written and although it only addresses venue, it does have some precedential value for the future of "CFAA law".
For one, if you plan to rely on improper venue as a defense, stay away from the Second Circuit!