{"id":2922,"date":"2014-05-21T02:49:37","date_gmt":"2014-05-21T02:49:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=2922"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:43","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:43","slug":"do-not-read-this-article-at-work-the-cfaa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/do-not-read-this-article-at-work-the-cfaa\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Not Read This Article at Work: The CFAA&#039;s Vagueness Problem and Recent Legislative Attempts to Correct It"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (\u201cCFAA\u201d), the nation\u2019s leading anti-hacking statute, criminalizes unauthorized access to any computer in the world. The CFAA does not specify what types of computer use qualify as unauthorized access, and circuit courts are split over approaches to defining the term. Although some courts have held that violations of private contracts such as employment agreements or website Terms of Service agreements constitute unauthorized access to a computer, others have held that such a broad reading renders the CFAA unconstitutionally vague. In the past year, lawmakers have introduced bills to clarify the conduct prohibited by the CFAA. Although each proposal narrows the scope of the CFAA, only one\u2014Aaron\u2019s Law\u2014provides sufficient clarity to correct the CFAA\u2019s vagueness problem.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (\u201cCFAA\u201d), the nation\u2019s leading anti-hacking statute, criminalizes unauthorized access to any computer in the world. The CFAA does not specify what types of computer use qualify as unauthorized access, and circuit courts are split over approaches to defining the term. Although some courts have held that violations of private <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/do-not-read-this-article-at-work-the-cfaa\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,57,59],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2922"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2922"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2922\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7464,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2922\/revisions\/7464"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}