Discussion

• @juliaangwin Julia Angwin on x

  Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments about an outdated anti-hacking law, the CFAA, that threatens data journalists like us @themarkup with criminal penalties. We filed an amicus brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... And we are wearing our #ScrapingIsNotACrime t-shirts to…

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  Here's my thread live-tweeting the Van Buren argument on the meaning of the CFAA. Although C-SPAN is saying it starts at 11 eastern (now), that's wrong: It's not starting for at least 20 minutes, b/c the prior case was scheduled for 80 minutes, not 60 minutes. So stay tuned.

• @nabihasyed Nabiha Syed on x

  Today, the Supreme Court will hear a case about an old hacking law from the 1980s. Interpreted the wrong way, this law — the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — threatens journalism you love. I mean, who wants to know *less* about the technology that shapes everything we do online?

• @themarkup @themarkup on x

  🧵 We think that the Van Buren v. United States case before the Supreme Court today is a threat to data journalism. So much so that we filed an amicus brief. This is why:

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  I'd guess that the Court reverses in the end, in part based on their recent past w/ the scope of criminal statutes. Justice Alito suggested that he saw this as a hard case, and he's probably the most in general on the govt's side of crim cases.

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  Everyone wants to start with, okay, who will win? I think the telephonic arguments make that harder to tell than in person arguments. On the phone, it's more structured, so there's less discussion that gives you insights on that.

• @biellacoleman @biellacoleman on x

  If you want to learn a bit about the history of the CFAA and where it came from, I recommend this short piece on War Games, the 1984 blockbuster film on hacking: https://hackcur.io/... https://twitter.com/...

• @ericgeller Eric Geller on x

  Here's my story about this morning's SCOTUS arguments in Van Buren v. United States, where several justices sounded concerned about the government's interpretation of the U.S.'s main cybercrime law. https://www.politico.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @robpegoraro Rob Pegoraro on x

  Saying that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act risks “making a federal criminal of us all,” as Justice Gorsuch put it, is a legit critique of that overly broad law. Security researchers and digital-liberties advocates have been saying as much for years. https://www.politico.com/...

• @varadmehta Varad Mehta on x

  “DOJ's argument risked ‘making a federal criminal of us all,’ Gorsuch said. Not what you want to hear from a justice if you're defending a federal statute before the Supreme Court. https://www.politico.com/...

• @tom_cardoso Tom Cardoso on x

  Web scraping, an essential data journalism technique, is under the microscope at the U.S. Supreme Court today, and friends at @themarkup have filed a brief (and made some cool t-shirts!). Only a matter of time before we wrestle with similar questions here in Canada... https://twi…

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  Until this case, everyone up to now, including DOJ, has agreed that the statute is incredibly broad other than the matter of authorization. The whole game is authorization. See what I wrote about the issue here in 2010: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/ ...

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  My sense is that there were only two Justices who seemed clearly disposed to one side: Both Sotomayor and Gorsuch seemed on Van Buren's side. I don't think anyone stood out as clearly on the government's side.

• @vickerysec Chris Vickery on x

  Listening to the recording of the Van Buren v. United States arguments from this morning (Supreme Court). I'm only a few minutes into it thus far and it is abundantly clear the justices have confused the concept of “access” with the concept of “and then committing a crime later”.

• @cendemtech @cendemtech on x

  “The country's foundational anti-hacking law—Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—faces major test Monday, as Supreme Court to hear arguments in case that could radically broaden scope of what's considered computer crime & expand power companies have over users:” https://www.protocol.com…

• @issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x

  This is why the folks at EPIC say the court can rule against Van Buren (a cop who got paid to spy on someone in a gov't database) without ruling so broadly as to make any violation of a company's terms of service criminal. EFF and ACLU fear the opposite. https://www.protocol.com/…

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  I plan to live-tweet the Van Buren oral arguments tomorrow, for the handful of CFAA nerds who might care. https://www.c-span.org/...

• @hongpong Doomer Gloomer Hacker Spy on x

  it is crazy the CFAA pretty much just got passed because of WarGames . that one scene where (the actor who played principal Strickland in Back to the Future) is like we're gonna hold you on the espionage act kid, politicians thought Mm we need a new law for this now https://twitt…

• @pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x

  SCOTUS going all in for cyber monday today with both the census case and the CFAA oral argument.

• @nabihasyed Nabiha Syed on x

  What's particularly terrifying about the CFAA is that there's a criminal aspect to it, too. So the stakes are very high for anyone using commonplace data journalism techniques to investigate websites or social platforms!