DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Departing Employee Taking Data from “Restricted” but Unsecured Folder Doesn’t Violate CFAA

Posted on February 12, 2016 by Dissent

Shawn E. Tuma writes:

When an employer intends to keep a network folder restricted from employees, but fails to (1) objectively communicate this intention or (2) secure the folder from general access, an employee who accesses the folder and takes data from it does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), even if he does so for an improper purpose. 

In Tank Connection, LLC v. Haight, 2016 WL 492751 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2016), the court granted the former employee’s motion for summary judgment against the employer’s CFAA claim.

Read more on the Cybersecurity Law Blog.

Related posts:

  • Van Buren is a Victory Against Overbroad Interpretations of the CFAA, and Protects Security Researchers
  • DOJ’s New CFAA Policy is a Good Start But Does Not Go Far Enough to Protect Security Researchers
  • Heads Up Internet: Time to Kill Another Dangerous CFAA Bill
Category: Breach LawsCommentaries and AnalysesFederalOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Iranian man pleads not guilty in bank fraud of South Mississippi customers
DOJ Hacker Also Accessed Forensic Reports and State Department Emails →

1 thought on “Departing Employee Taking Data from “Restricted” but Unsecured Folder Doesn’t Violate CFAA”

  1. Justin Shafer says:
    February 12, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    Good to know!

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.