<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>cyber law on ExcellentWiki - Legal Encyclopedia</title>
		<link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/us/cyber-law/</link>
		<description>Recent content in cyber law on ExcellentWiki - Legal Encyclopedia</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-US</language>
		
		
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="https://legal.excellentwiki.com/us/cyber-law/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>US Cyber Law</title>
				<link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/us/cyber-law/us-cyber-law/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/us/cyber-law/us-cyber-law/</guid>
				<description>&lt;h2 id=&#34;the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act&#34;&gt;The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, constitutes the primary federal statute addressing computer-related crime in the United States. Originally enacted in 1986 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the CFAA has been amended multiple times, most significantly by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008, and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009. The statute criminalises seven categories of conduct involving computers: unauthorised access to obtain national security information; accessing a computer and obtaining protected financial or credit information; intentional unauthorised access to a non-public government computer; accessing a computer with intent to defraud; intentionally causing damage by knowing transmission of code or commands; trafficking in passwords with intent to defraud; and extortion involving threats to damage computers. The CFAA has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation, particularly on the question of what constitutes &lt;em&gt;authorisation&lt;/em&gt;. In &lt;em&gt;Van Buren v United States&lt;/em&gt; (593 U.S. ___ , 2021), the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation, holding that a person &lt;em&gt;exceeds authorised access&lt;/em&gt; when they access a computer with authorisation but obtain information located in particular files or databases that are off-limits to them, resolving a longstanding circuit split and limiting the reach of the statute in the employment context.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
