Summary of us vs morris 928 F .2d 504 (2d cir 1991) - Essay Example

Summary of US vs Morris 928 F .2d 504 (2d cir 1991) The US vs Morris (1991) was an appeal against a conviction pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 1986. The conviction was rendered by the District Court for the Northern District of New York. Specifically the appellant was convicted of “intentionally” and without authorization accessing federal interest computers and causing damages as well as preventing use of those computers (US vs Morris 1991). The appellant challenged the correct construction of Section 2 of the 1986 ground, the Section under which he had been charged and convicted.

His argument suggests that since he had authorized access to federal interests computers and his experiment reached other federal interests computers to which he did not have access, he was not caught by Section 2, particularly since he had authorized access. According to the appellant, the most that he could have been guilty of was exceeding his authorized access, a far less serious offence (US vs Morris 1991). Affirming the lower court’s conviction, the appellate court examined the legislative history of the 1986 Act.

The 1986 amends a previous 1984 legislative provision which called for prosecution of persons who knowingly gained unauthorized access to federal interest computers and caused damages and prevented authorized use of the computer. The appellate court felt that the reason for the change from knowingly to intentionally was to ensure that persons who carelessly, mistakenly, or inadvertently gained unauthorized access to federal interest computers would not be caught by the act. Moreover, the mens rea of knowingly might not be appropriate in cases where computer technology was involved (US vs Morris 1991).

However, the appellate court did not feel that the legislative intent to preclude inadvertent, mistaken and careless access to federal interest computers from criminal prosecutions in an appropriate case. Certainly, the appellant, who was conducting an experiment at Cornell University in a computer lab which was connected to a network of federal computers had authorized access. However, the manner in which he used that authorized access rendered it unauthorized. The appellate court felt that the legislative intent behind the amended mens rea in the 1986 Act could not have reasonably intended that abuse of authorized access would render such conduct beyond the reach of prosecutors.

On the facts of the case, the appellant used his authorized access to test the effectiveness of a computer worm that he had invented. He used that authorized access to gain access to a network of computers in federal buildings that were connected to the network that he was authorized to use. Even the military’s network was infected. Notwithstanding that the appellant had not intended to cause the kind of damages and prevention of authorized use that he caused, he nonetheless exceeded is authorized access.

The appellate court ruled that the test for determining whether or not the individual charged under Section 2 of the 1986 Act intentionally gained unauthorized access was independent of the damages caused. In other words, it did not matter what damages the accused individual intended or did not intend. The sole question with respect to intention, pursuant to Section 2 of the 1986 Act was whether or not the accused intentionally gained unauthorized access to a federal interest computer. It was then necessary to determine whether or not the intentional unauthorized use of the computer resulted in damages under US$1000 or prevented authorized use of the federal interest computer.

Therefore the conviction of the lower court was confirmed with the result that the appeal failed. Bibliography United States v. Morris 928 F.2d 504 (1991) http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/84/85/114/137/morris.pdf (Retrieved February 28, 2011).