The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is an American law ratified to deal with cybercrime since 1986. The tenets of the law lay in securing computer data from access by unauthorized users. The threat that was perceived at the time when the legislation was passed was computer hacking. Computer users, at the time, had two fears; an unauthorized person would break into the nuclear control system or take control of the banking system. Recently, the act has been expanded through a series of amendments. The emergence of new threats from abroad has necessitated the American congress to revisit the CFAA and expand it to incorporate all America's computer resources. The CFAA is reportedly profoundly flawed as well as outdated. Representative Zoe Lofgren from California introduced a law “Aaron’s law,” which directly opposes the popular CFAA law. The Aaron law hugely limits some aspects of the CFAA law. The law was named after an activist, Aaron, who contributed immensely to the society both politically and technically before committing suicide at the age of twenty-six. Aaron's contribution enabled the massive sharing of web content, and his achievement was not technically limited. He is well known in the political arena as having pioneered the Demand Progress group (Brenton, 2009). The innovation prevented the limits of innovation and online free speech. He believed that government-funded research should be accessible to all through the web. Aaron is recorded to have downloaded a JSTOR document to his laptop. However, by setting up a computer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and downloading the materials, it was purported that he committed a felony. The federal prosecutors had 11 felonies against Aaron. Consequently, for downloading the academic documents, Aaron faced a jail term of between five to thirty-five years. Aaron committed suicide two years to the start of the trials (Icove et al., 1995). It is no secret that Aaron was a victim of over prosecution. In another Pinstance, a young programmer was accused of attacking the Paypal server after his page was terminated. Twenty-eight-year-old Keith Downey, who hailed from Florida was accused and dubbed to have committed a felony. To date, the young Downey faces fifteen years in jail. The sentence is the same as for sex abuse or homicide convicts. Andrew Aurnheimer, 27 years old, was accused of trading illegally obtained information to Gawker.com about iPad users. However, Andrew together with his co-accused Daniel Spitler, in their presentation argued that they intended to show the weakness of the iPad generated information. The information in possession of AT&T could be generated by any other hacker and misused. After pleading guilty, Aurnheimer was sentenced to a 41-month sentence. Shockingly, it is the same sentence that a child pornographer had been handed earlier the same month. Aurnheimer’s case was intriguing. He was treated like a criminal instead of a whistleblower. The sentence, in all terms, is harsh. Throughout the world, the criminal law act differently. One has read of cases where thieves are thrown in prison to serve very long jail terms, and in extreme cases, thieves have had their arms or hands chopped off. The case should be different from America. Importantly, it is a country that believes in equal punishment to the crime committed. The CFAA laws were ambiguously written to the extending of handing down disproportionate sentences to the crime committed. The three convicts, Downey, Aaron, and Auernheimer, never committed any act of terrorism, but they were treated as such by the law. Aaron’s law must be amended for the intent of the crime to be clarified. Damages caused by computer crimes should be defined, and penalties should be proportionate to the crimes committed. Moreover, duplicating charges should be disallowed. The intent of modifying the CFAA would be to differentiate minor violations from serious computer fraud (Brenton, 2009. Reworking of the CFAA would be a significant milestone in fixing the chaotic bill. The contemporary society is alive to increasing computer crimes. As such, penalties should be enacted for serious computer crime offenders (Icove et al., 1995). However, it is prudent that the laws are written in a manner that does not over prosecute minor offenders. The impact of the law would not only be limited to the establishment of fairness but rather creates a forum for punishing serious computer offenders accordingly. The law should not generalize computer offenders. It is prudent that in every instance, the law establishes the intent of the computer crime offender. In 1989, three years after the anti-hacking statute was enacted, the government convicted a graduate of Cornell University, Robert Morris, of computer fraud. The convict was accused of creating and unleashing Morris worm, a virus that caused havoc. In the trial, Robert Morris was handed a three-year probation and 400 community working hours. In regards to the three cases discussed in this paper involving over prosecution, the Morris case was handled fairer to him. I simple terms, the CFAA law prohibits unauthorized access to information or exceeding authorized information access to both employees of ex-employees of a company (Brenton, 2009). That much is understandable and fair. However, the Case of Robert Morris was controversial. While Downey, Aaron, and Auernheimer were minor offenders; the three were victims of over prosecution. Robert Morris was handed a lesser punishment. In an American language, the punishment was less than his offense. The four hundred hours plus three years’ probation was improper. The felony deserved more as the intent of his actions is documented. He intended to cause harm, of which he did.
References
Brenton, K. W. (2009). Trade Secret Law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Two
Problems and Two Solutions. U. Ill. JL Tech. & Policy , 429.
Icove, D., Seger, K., & VonStorch, W. (1995). Computer crime: a crime fighter’s handbook .
Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
