[Goety]

I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

I will say there is a ridiculous amount of redtape around law enforcement using data. Loopholes with third party access is already something that exist. So if it's above board monitoring would be easier... But I'm not sure we have adequate monitoring let alone enforcement now.

I feel this is a weak case to attack 3rd party data scrapers/brokers. The public generally recognizes the monster we created by having life changing data accessible to anyone with $50 and a bank account.

I want to side with LinkedIn but realistically I'm becoming more and more jaded on the concept of open internet and iot of everything. I hate the alternative of an open internet worse. I would love to restrict data scrapers but at the same time should we restrict who has that data? I'd rather we shift how we use the internet and socially enforce boundaries on companies.

I cant even open my fridge, use my microwave, stove without it being logged either by the electric company or bluetooth enabled appliance with TV and wifi temperature control software company where you hope an update doesnt brick the appliance.

There is no way in my mind that data helps the consumer. It might help companies maximize profit but at what energy consumption/cost to the environment?

[cortesoft]

> I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

The court was absolutely correct in their ruling. If you don't want cops using that data for their own purposes, it should be against the law.... it doesn't make sense to use the CFAA as a catch all for stopping people from misusing data they were given access to. If we do, it gives every private company the ability to make breaking their EULA a criminal offense. That is ridiculous.

HIPPA is a good example of how the law should work. You make what you want illegal; it has nothing to do with computers.

Why would the cop using a computer to access the information be against the law but not a cop going and reading a paper file?

[dragonwriter]

> HIP[A]A is a good example of how the law should work. You make what you want illegal; it has nothing to do with computers.

HIPAA has lots of rules that apply only with computers (or, specifically, a very interesting definition of “electronic transaction”), which is a big reason fax is still a thing in healthcare, because transactions conducted by fax are not considered “electronic” under HIPAA, so a variety of rules that apply when transactions are conducted electronically do not apply.

[Goety]

> use the CFAA as a catch all for stopping people from misusing data they were given access to. If we do, it gives every private company the ability to make breaking their EULA a criminal offense. That is ridiculous.

That is a stretch. This case was specifically applied to the public sector and 'not completely unauthorized' makes CFAA almost inapplicable to public sector databases.

[nulbyte]

> I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

I don't see the similarity between CFAA and HIPAA, here, and SCOTUS didn't obliterate the CFAA. Theybsimply said, if you are authorized to use a system, your use of the system isn't unauthorized. That's fairly straightforward.

HIPAA, on the other hand, regulates disclosure of specific data. You can violate HIPAA even if you are authorized to use a system that holds covered data.

[anfilt]

And HIPPA covers more than just computers. It includes paper records. Using just the CFAA as crutch for data the should not misused still allows misuse of paper documents or overhearing a conversation ect...

[Goety]

They made it unenforceable in the public sector. Some people make parallels that both law enforcement and healthcare are somewhat a public good.