DataBreaches.Net

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

Court: Employee was authorized to access files (updated)

Posted on September 16, 2009 by Dissent

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision may be of interest to those who wonder about suing former employees for unauthorized to data. In LVRC Holdings V. Brekka, the court held:

LVRC Holdings, LLC (LVRC) filed this lawsuit in federal district court against its former employee, Christopher
Brekka, his wife, Carolyn Quain, and the couple’s two consulting businesses, Employee Business Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (EBSN), and Employee Business Solutions, Inc., a Florida corporation (EBSF). LVRC alleged that Brekka violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, by accessing LVRC’s computer “without authorization,” both while Brekka was employed at LVRC and after he left the company. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), (4).

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm. Because Brekka was authorized to use LVRC’s computers while he was employed at LVRC, he did not access a computer “without authorization” in violation of § 1030(a)(2) or § 1030(a)(4) when he emailed documents to himself and to his wife prior to leaving LVRC. Nor did emailing the documents “exceed authorized access,” because Brekka was entitled to obtain the documents. Further, LVRC failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Brekka accessed the LVRC website without authorization after he left the company.

Update: Jennifer Granick of EFF has posted a legal analysis of this case that you can read here. She writes, in part:

The Brekka opinion is in line with the more recent and better line of district court cases that have rejected a “thought crime” interpretation of the CFAA where the employee’s mental state determines whether she was authorized or not. Brekka says that neither the statutory language nor the canons of criminal law allow such a broad reading that leaves people uncertain of when this criminal statute would apply.

The opinion puts the Ninth Circuit at odds, however, with an older Seventh Circuit opinion in International Airport Centers v. Citrin, written by the well-known Judge Posner. Brekka and Citrin are the only appellate court decisions on the question of whether a breach of loyalty makes computer use criminal, but there’s now a circuit split. It will be interesting to see whether the plaintiffs in Brekka ask the Supreme Court to review the matter. For now, Brekka is solidly in line with current jurisprudence giving a proper, narrower scope to the CFAA.

Related posts:

  • David Nosal sentenced; case narrowed the definition of “exceeding authorized access” under CFAA (update1)
Category: InsiderUnauthorized Access

Post navigation

← Express Scripts updates their breach report
For your illiterate criminals file →

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

  • British national “IntelBroker” charged with causing $25 million in damages; U.S. seeks his extradition from France
  • France issues press statement about arrest of ShinyHunters members
  • Patients Allege Home Delivery Pharmacy Failed to Timely Notify Them of Data Breach
  • Hackers breach Norwegian dam, open valve at full capacity
  • Patient death at London hospital linked to cyber attack on NHS
  • ShinyHunters and team members arrested in France (2)
  • Texas Enacts Liability Shield From Punitive Damages for Certain Small Businesses That Adopt Cybersecurity Programs
  • Dublin ETB fined €125,000 for data protection breaches
  • From $5,000 to $800,000: Days Apart, OCR Security Settlements Show Puzzling Math
  • Liberty Township in Ohio has recovered its network after a ransomware attack

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

  • How Internet of Things devices affect your privacy – even when they’re not yours
  • Sky Views Personal Data as a Potential Weapon in IPTV Piracy War
  • Florida Used a Nationwide Surveillance Camera Network 250 Times To Aid in Immigration Arrests
  • Federal Court Strikes Down HIPAA Reproductive Health Care Privacy Rule
  • The Markup caught 4 more states sharing personal health data with Big Tech
  • Privacy in the Big Sky State: Montana’s Consumer Privacy Law Gets Amended
  • UK Passes Data Use and Access Regulation Bill

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.