Supreme Court Oral Argument Dissects Computer Hacking Case

The Supreme Court discussed what constitutes a computer crime, in a case concerning a former police officer who allegedly accepted a bribe to access license plate information. Nathan Van Buren is appealing a 2017 conviction on violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. SCOTUS received briefs from groups concerned about Van Buren’s interpretation of the law and what it could mean for privacy, said Justice Samuel Alito during Monday’s oral argument in Van Buren v. U.S. Government employees and citizens could potentially access highly personal information to make money, break the law or harass people if Van Buren prevails, groups said. In response to a question from Alito, Van Buren’s attorney Jeffrey Fisher said Congress wasn’t concerned about that when passing CFAA, only computer hacking, though lawmakers may want to regulate or criminalize the activity Alito described. The statute is designed to cover “serious breaches of trust,” like looking up personal information without authorization, said Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin. Before the court is whether a person authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates CFAA if that user accesses “the same information for an improper purpose.” Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the distinctions Fisher tried to make. Thomas used the example of a car rental employee using GPS information to track a spouse rather than a vehicle, asking whether that would be a violation. The car rental employee is entitled to the GPS information, though there may be a breach of company policy, said Fisher: The question is whether the user is entitled to obtain the information. Justice Elena Kagan said a key question is what “so” means in the statute, referencing its definition of “exceeds authorized access,” which refers to information the “accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” Fisher says it means “by accessing a computer,” she said, while Feigin said it means “by using your access.” Fisher has a point, Kagan said: “He is saying that what that prevents is using the statutes as to cases where you could obtain the information in a nondigital manner.”