for damaging computers used for national security or criminal justice. Some major provisions of the act are outlined shortly. In the case of Andrew “weev” Auernheimer, the hacker was found guilty of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he released hundreds of thousands of iPad email addresses. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction after federal prosecutors wrongly filed the case against him in New Jersey, noting that none of the crimes had been perpetrated in that state. Corporate Espionage (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1)) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1) states: “having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;” Other provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act are important: Computer Trespassing (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)) Committing Fraud with a Protected Computer (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(3)) Distributing Passwords of a Government/Commercial Computer (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6)) Damage to a Protected Computer (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7))
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (47 U.S.C. § 1002) Advancements in telecommunications have often made it more difficult for law enforcement to carry out effective electronic surveillance of a criminal suspect. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was introduced to facilitate law enforcement in their surveillance activities of telecom companies. In essence, telecommunications companies were forced to redesign much of their infrastructure to become compliant with CALEA and provide improved electronic surveillance for law enforcement. In other words, there is a legal obligation for telecommunication service providers to assist law enforcement with their investigations. Cisco has actually published a Lawful Intercept Configuration Guide , which outlines the schematics for communications interceptions by law enforcement agencies under CALEA. You can review the Cisco 7600 guide online ( - 2SR/configuration/lawful_intercept/lawful-int--Book- Wrapper/76LIch1.html ).
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 72 pages?