Is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Unconstitutionally Vague?
posted by Daniel Solove
At the National Law Journal, attorney Nick Akerman (Dorsey & Whitney) contends that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) indictment of Lori Drew (background about the case is here) is an appropriate interpretation of the statute:
While this may be the first prosecution under the CFAA for cyberbullying, the statute neatly fits the facts of this crime. Drew is charged with violating §§ 1030(a)(2)(C), (c)(2)(B)(2) of the CFAA, which make it a felony punishable up to five years imprisonment, if one “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization . . . , and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate . . . communication” and “the offense was committed in furtherance of any . . . tortious act [in this case intentional infliction of emotional distress] in violation of the . . . laws . . . of any State.”
There is no question that the MySpace network is a “protected” computer as that term is defined by the statute. Indeed, “[e]very cell phone and cell tower is a ‘computer’ under this statute’s definition; so is every iPod, every wireless base station in the corner coffee shop, and many another gadget.” U.S. v. Mitra, 405 F.3d 492, 495 (8th Cir. 2005). There is also no question that a violation of MySpace’s TOS provides a valid predicate for proving that the defendant acted “without authorization.” What the commentators ignored in their critique of this indictment is that the “CFAA . . . is primarily a statute imposing limits on access and enhancing control by information providers.” EF Cultural Travel B.V. v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir. 2003). A company “can easily spell out explicitly what is forbidden.” Id. at 63. Thus, companies have the right to post what are in effect “No Trespassing” signs that can form the basis for a criminal prosecution.
If this interpretation of the law is correct, then the law is probably unconstitutionally vague. A vague law is one that either fails to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; or authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The CFAA, as construed by the prosecution in the Drew case, will probably be found vague because it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Suppose I put a notice on this post that says: “No attorneys may post a comment to this blog.” Suppose Nick Ackerman comes to this site, sees this post, and and writes a comment that is defamatory. Under his theory, he can be prosecuted for violating the CFAA. He has “trespassed” on this site. Moreover, if a blog has a policy that it will not tolerate “rude, uncivil, or off-topic comments,” then commenters who make such comments that are tortious (intentional infliction of emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, false light, defamation, etc.) can be liable for a CFAA violation. Moreover, any use of a website that goes against whatever terms the operator of that site has set forth that constitutes a negligence tort is also criminal.
The problem here is that the CFAA’s applicability would be extremely broad — so broad that the cases likely to be prosecuted would be arbitrary. Since tort law is common law, and is very flexible, broad, and evolving, people would not have adequate notice about what conduct would be legal and not legal. There’s a reason why tort law is different from criminal law — we are willing to accept a lot more ambiguity and uncertainty in tort law than in criminal law, where the stakes involve potential imprisonment.
Moreover, Nick Akerman only focuses on the CFAA § 1030(c)(2)(B)(2), which makes it a felony to exceed authorized access if the offense was committed in furtherance of any tortious act.
The CFAA § 1020(a)(2)(C) makes it a criminal misdemeanor to “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication.” If I’m interpreting this correctly (and I don’t purport to be an expert on the CFAA), under the Drew prosecutor’s interpretation of the CFAA, any time a person violates a website’s terms of service and access any information from the site, there’s a criminal violation. That means that if I post on this blog a notice that says: “No attorneys may access any other parts of this blog other than the front page,” and an attorney accesses any other page on my blog, then there’s a CFAA violation. Could the law possibly be this broad? I think it would require a narrowing interpretation in order to avoid problems of unconstitutional vagueness.
The CFAA strikes me as a very poorly drafted statute. The Drew indictment demonstrates the problems with the law. Either courts should fix the CFAA interpretively by narrowing its scope, or else strike it down as unconstitutionally vague. But what clearly cannot stand is for the law to be interpreted as the Drew prosecutor seeks to interpret it.
Hat tip: Dan Slater at the WSJ Blog
May 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Consumer Privacy), Privacy (Electronic Surveillance), Privacy (Gossip & Shaming), Privacy (Law Enforcement), Social Network Websites Print This Post