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. LIV No. 2
Boston College Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of our March 2013 issue. • Jeremy Waldron, Separation of […]
BCLR Elects New Board of Editors
On March 22, 2013, the membership of the Boston College Law Review elected a new Board of Editors for the […]
BCLR Editors Win Student Writing Competitions
Two members of the Boston College Law Review‘s Executive Board, Laura Kaplan and Michael Palmisciano, recently won national writing competitions […]