That's All. Good Luck!
The time to ask questions has now passed. I believe I have answered all questions that have been sent to me. If you think I have forgotten to answer one of your questions, please let me know soon. There won't be any other entries posted to the class website. If anything important is left to say, I will send it to you via e-mail.
posted at: 05:14 | path: | permanent link to this entry
To Whom Does Verdugo-Urquidez Apply?
Q: In looking at foreign wiretaps, one of the issues we have to deal with is whether or not US rights apply to the target. To do this, I believe, in class, we have to look at the general connections of the person to the US. What are examples of things we look to in seeing general connections of persons to the US?
A: The best I can do it point you to Part II.B of the majority opinion
in Barona and to the Rehnquist opinion in Verdugo-Urquidez (Note 1
following Barona) which both begin to answer this question. Justice
Brennan puts forth his own view of this in dissent (also Note 1).
posted at: 13:53 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Does Nosal Create a Circuit Split?
Q: In my notes I have that the ninth circuit stands alone on the issue of whether authorized access extends to violations of use restrictions. I also have that there is a circuit split. Is this circuit split between the ninth and the rest of the circuits?
A: There's certainly tension between what the Ninth Circuit said in
Nosal and what other circuits have said. This tension is spelled out
in detail in the dissent in Nosal. But those other cases weren't
directly on all fours with Nosal, so I'm not quite sure how to
characterize the full extent of the split. But the Ninth Circuit does
seem to disagree with some of what other courts have said.
posted at: 13:47 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Assigning IP Addresses
Q: Just to make sure I understand how IP addresses work: you are assigned a unique IP address by the ISP when your computer connects to a network and this IP address changes when you connect to different networks?
A: Yes. That's correct. As you travel from network to network (for
example, connecting to different networks via wifi), you communicate
using different IP addresses.
posted at: 13:45 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Meaning of "Voluntary Disclosure" in the SCA
Q: In using the term "voluntary" in section 2702, does this mean that you, the provider, seek out the govt and offer the info or would "voluntary" also include a govt agent coming to your business and asking for information and you just divulging it to him?
A: Voluntary disclosure can include government-initiated transactions,
so long as the decision to divulge is truly voluntary, ie not
posted at: 13:43 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Stepping Through an Internet Investigation
Q: In an online investigation, once you get an IP address tied to some criminal activity from an email provider or website, you then use a public look up to find the ISP associated with that IP address and then go to the provider for more in-depth information that you can't get from the email provider or website administrator?
A: Yes. Listen to the last 15-20 minutes of the audio recording of the
review session for much more on this.
posted at: 13:40 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Damage from Assembling a Botnet Army?
Q: On the sect. 1030 worksheet under question [F-1] "Has the Chairman violated 1030(a)(5)?" The answer is yes under (A) - (C). Is that due to the denial-of-service attacks or because of the subsequent act of infecting computers with the viruses? If it's because of the viruses, is the damage the potential damage from "listen[ing] for commands from the Chairman"?
A: The question is referring to the damage from the acts of infecting many computers on the Internet, not the subsequent denial of service attack. This is probably a crime under (A) - (C) because of the broad definition of "damage" in 1030(e)(8). The theory would be that by adding a program to the victim computer, the Chairman is impairing the integrity of a system. Because that code "listens" for further commands, that's another argument in favor of impaired integrity.
But your question raises a good point. Because the problem states that the viruses "do not affect the functioning of the infected computer in anyway [sic]", there's at least an argument that mere listening for commands does not constitute damage. I personally think a court would still find damage, given the breadth of the word, "integrity," but I think there's a defense. At any rate, I think my answer on the answer key is misleading because it uses the word, "easy."
posted at: 06:27 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Welcome to the student question and answer blog for Professor Ohm's 2013 Computer Crime course. During the exam period, I will post student questions with my answers on this page.
I am not posting every single student question. Instead, I am only
posting student questions that I believe the class, as a whole, will
benefit from hearing. Some questions are too basic to merit widespread
attention. Other questions are too advanced and nuanced. So don't
take it personally if your question doesn't appear here. (Do take it
personally if I don't respond to one of your questions. I might have
forgotten to get to it, so if you don't hear from me in a day or two,
please ask again.)
posted at: 20:00 | path: | permanent link to this entry