|
''LVRC Holdings v. Brekka'' 581 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) is a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision that deals with the scope of the concept of "authorization" in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The major finding of this case is that even if an employee accesses a computer for an improper purpose, such as one that violates the duty of loyalty to their employer, the employee remains authorized to access the computer until the employer revokes the employee's access. The findings of this case were upheld by another Ninth Circuit decision in United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) and are the current law in this circuit. This case is noteworthy because the court differentiated itself from the Seventh's Circuit interpretation of "authorization" by assessing whether the employer made the computer system available to the employee during the employee's access, instead of examining the subjective intent the employee had when accessing the system. Since this decision limited the scope of when an employee could access a computer "without authorization" than the Seventh Circuit did in a similar case, this case defined a circuit split of authority on the scope of the term "authorization." This issue could be settled by the Supreme Court in the future, although no case is currently pending that would allow the decision to be determined. == Factual background == LVRC Holdings, LLC (LVRC) operated an addiction treatment center in Nevada.〔 In April 2003, LVRC hired Christopher Brekka. Part of his duties included interacting with LVRC's email provider (Load, Inc.) and conducting Internet marketing programs. When Brekka was hired, he owned and operated EBSN and EBSF, two consulting businesses that provided referrals of potential patients to rehabilitation facilities. LVRC's owner was aware of Brekka's businesses. During his time at LVRC, Brekka commuted between his home state, Florida, and Nevada, where LVRC and his first business were located.〔 His second business is based in Florida. Brekka was assigned a computer at LVRC headquarters. Because of this frequent commute between Florida and Nevada, he emailed documents he obtained or created for his work at LVRC to his own personal computer. LVRC and Brekka had no written employment agreement. LVRC had no internal policy which would prohibit the transfer of LVRC documents to personal computers. In June 2003, he emailed the administrative password for the LVRC's email system to his personal account.〔 In August 2003, Brekka and LVRC began discussions regarding the possibilities of Brekka investing in an ownership interest in LVRC. At the end of the month, Brekka emailed to his wife and himself a number of documents including a financial statement for the company, LVRC's marketing budget, and admission reports for patients. On September 4, 2003, he emailed a master admission report containing the names of all the past and current patients at LVRC. The negotiation regarding Brekka's investment in LVRC broke down mid-September 2003.〔 He stopped working for LVRC and left his LVRC computer at the company as is, without deleting any emails. On November 2004, LVRC noticed that someone was accessing its website using Brekka's login.〔 LVRC then sued Brekka in federal court, alleging that he violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) when he emailed LVRC's documents to himself. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|