doge.gov got hacked
doge.gov got hacked
web.archive.org Workforce | DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency
Workforce data for the U.S. government.
26 评论
-
The CFAA describes "hacking" (not a legal term) as any unauthorized access to a computer system. It literally means that your boss can pretend that you shouldn't have accessed a file and fire you for it. It means "hacking" is effectively anything. Any incompetence no matter how stupid can result in you being a "hacker" under this law. You looked at a web page that a company claims you shouldn't have even if they put it on their front page at the root of their domain? Yeah that's hacking under the CFAA. Sucks to be you, maybe don't go to wellsfargo.com when they're doing "scheduled maintenance" you "hacker". This legislation is trash.
-
Correct, which is why out isn't a mandatory charge and has quite a high level of burden to carry.
-
Lmao yea right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz_case
It took 40 years and countless trials and affected people for the state to come out and say that CFAA cannot be used against people accessing data that is normally available regardless of intent and purpose.
It's quite literally a Kafaka-esque law that makes no sense in the modern world because it's overly broad working, interpretation and previous litigious use.
It's actually quite simple to get someone under the CFAA, and the burden isn't high at all. It's also quite nonsensical
United States vs. Tyler King for example the prosecution and court found no financial motive, no direct involvement and he still got 6.5 years under the conspiracy provisions.
Also some literal exploits are not officially "hacking". That's right some actual "hacking" is not hacking by law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kane
United States v Sergey Aleynikov, was literally the US DOJ prosecuting a case of intellectual property fraud on behalf of Goldman Sachs.
CISCO has used the act and DOJ to silence critics and opposition as in United States v. Peter Alfred-Adekeye
In United States v. Nosal & United States v. Lori Drew, the US had tried to get violations of TOS to be seen as a CFAA violation.
CFAA was amended in 2008 to be even more broad than it was written originally.
Looking at the civil cases it's even more fun:
Craigslist v. 3Taps says that an IP block is legally binding and getting around it is a violation of the CFAA.
Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union creates a liability for any letter writing campaign that affects the ability of a company to do business. So if you have a campaign and too many people to complain to a web form such that it causes outages or degredation, it's a violation and you're liable.
International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin says that it's a violation to delete files on your work computer, but also LVRC Holdings v. Brekka says using company computers for personal purposes is fine and also Lee v. PMSI, Inc. says violating company policy acceptable use policy is not a violation of the CFAA.
CFAA is a joke anyone defending it has no idea what they're talking about. There is not a serious technologist who looks at legal issues that consider this a good law. It has a history rife with abuse and corporate malfeasance.
-
Right off the bat you lost.
Swartz doesn't have an outcome, he killed himself before that and this wouldn't be normally accessible anyway. But bey nice ai try bud.
Link#2 also a fail on your part.
The Court held that an individual will “exceed authorized access” under the CFAA when he or she accesses a computer without authorization and obtains information located in particular areas of the computer, such as files or databases, that are off-limits to him. Because Van Buren had access to the license plate information he accessed, the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. Thus, employers should carefully review employees’ computer access, as access for improper purpose may be permitted under the CFAA.
Link#3
The third is a critique of it's incredible scope and vagueries of definitions which would again imply I'm correct.
Seriously bud, AI is not your friend, don't let it out do your schoolwork for you.
-
Link#2 also a fail on your part.
The Court held that an individual will “exceed authorized access” under the CFAA when he or she accesses a computer without authorization and obtains information located in particular areas of the computer, such as files or databases, that are off-limits to him. Because Van Buren had access to the license plate information he accessed, the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. Thus, employers should carefully review employees’ computer access, as access for improper purpose may be permitted under the CFAA.
I'm not going to reply anymore because you're just doing debate bro shit without actually understanding what is happening and what has happened with the CFAA. The outcome of Van Buren forced the DOJ to issue explicit guidance which backtracked on previous things they would prosecute.
-
And you're not reading your sources, none of those are about access to .gov sites and yet again critique is scope and vagueries.
because you're just doing debate bro shit
Like actually reading or basing my argument on factual law not multiple unresolved opinion. Fuck would you need that for huh?
-
-
-
-
-
26 评论