Abstract: On April 10, 2012, in United States v. Nosal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) assigns criminal liability only in instances of hacking, not of misappropriation. In reaching this conclusion, the court engendered a split with two other circuits, which had previously held that the CFAA encompasses misappropriation as well as hacking. This Comment argues that, although the Ninth Circuit correctly excluded misappropriation from the CFAA’s ambit, the court’s rationale overlooked a more compelling policy consideration favoring the narrow interpretation: the potential disruption that a broad interpretation of the CFAA could cause within trade secret law.
BCLR Releases Vol. LV No. 3
The Boston College Law Review is pleased to publish the May 2014 issue. Here are summaries of this issue’s Articles and Notes: […]
Volume LVI Board of Editors Announced
We are pleased to announce the Board of Editors for the 2014-2015 academic year: Volume 56 Board of Editors […]
BCLR Releases Vol. LV No. 2
The Boston College Law Review is pleased to publish the March 2014 issue. Here are summaries of this issue’s Articles and […]