Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - Essay Example

This refers to the involvement of the federal government’s computers or prescribed financial bodies in instances where the committed crime is of an interstate nature. To clarify the provisions of the original Act further, trafficking in passwords, rebuffing service attacks and malicious distribution of codes was also criminalized by the CFAA. The Act also underwent several amendments in a bid to eliminate overlaps and fill loopholes between 1989 and 2008. With examples, this paper will question the legitimate effect of the CFAA: Has it been a success or failure in preventing computer fraud and abuse?

This question is driven by the vagueness of the law, which has the potential of exposing it to flaws and prosecutorial abuse. By its definition, the Act can be perceived from two angles in terms of the computers it covers (Granville, 2003). The covered computers are referred to as protected computers, and in this sense, theoretically, a protected computer is defined as one meant for exclusive use by the government of the United States or by a financial institution. It also refers to any other computer which uses the government or financial institution is injuriously affected by conduct that constitutes an offense.

This includes computers not within the United States, which affect foreign or interstate communication and commerce of the United States. . Since Congress did not describe clearly what was meant by that, it raises questions as to whether prosecutors will be of the opinion that a violator of terms of service of a website deserves time in jail or not (Jarrett & Bailie, 2010). Would such an opinion be reasonable or excessively harsh? Further, does the law need to separate the way it treats criminal intentions on the Internet that result in grave harm to the security of social, civic, and financial institutions from what is considered everyday Internet activity?

In the light of the current scramble for the Internet, lawmakers need to quantify the effectiveness of the CFAA and decide on how to respond to various stakeholders and interested parties. For instance, some foreign countries are seeking control over the Internet; powerful individuals and corporate organizations want it shaped in ways beneficial to them while undermining national interests; military regimes are spying, attacking and oppressing both private and public institutions; and intelligence and law enforcing agencies are seeking to monitor and mine it (Jarrett & Bailie, 2010).

An analysis of these areas will enable lawmakers to determine the success or failure of the CFAA so far, and whether or not reforms are required. In the widespread example of the Aaron law, it is open to argument whether Aaron Swartz committed a federal crime by downloading content from JSTOR, a well-known archive for academic documents, on which he had an account. After JSTOR administrators became aware of the downloads in 2011, they blocked them and did not pursue criminal charges.