Introduction
The CFAA criminalizes digital fraud and abuse. The 1980s law has been amended to stay up with technology. One of the most important federal laws that combat cybercrime like hacking, identity theft, and computer scams is the CFAA. Government, financial, and other businesses and people depend on the CFAA. The Act protects confidential data-storing and transmitting computer systems from unauthorized entry (Goanta & Zarras, 2021). CFAA violators face criminal and civil sanctions.
Cybercrime has changed, and so has the CFAA. The law was first used in criminal cases. Civil trials began in 1994. This amendment allowed companies and individuals to sue for CFAA violation-related losses. Despite its success in combating hacking, the CFAA has several flaws. The Act’s outdated penalties are a major drawback. Cybercrime is lighter than bank robbery. The CFAA needs revision due to this flaw (Thurston, 2022). The CFAA is vital to hacking prevention and prosecution. However, its rules need to be updated and have several flaws. This study analyzes the CFAA and proposes improvements to combat cybercrime.
Historical Background of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The 1986 federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) protects computer systems and networks. In the 1980s, computer-related crimes were rising. The CFAA criminalized hacking, computer theft, and virus distribution. After the “414s” stole proprietary software from a California company in 1983, the CFAA was amended in 1989 to criminalize the creation and distribution of viruses and other malicious code.
The CFAA has been amended several times, expanding its reach and increasing its penalties. The CFAA was changed in 1994 to include civil and criminal penalties for violations. This amendment allowed firms and individuals to sue for computer crime losses. The CFAA also imposes criminal sanctions, including fines and jail time, for lawbreakers(Thurston, 2022). The violation and its severity decide the penalties. For instance, those who steal trade secrets or destroy computer systems may receive longer prison terms and higher fines.
Even after amendments, the CFAA has been criticized for its broad and vague wording. Some legal experts have argued that the law’s provisions could criminalize actions like anonymous web browsing or copyrighted material sharing(O’Connor, 2019). Aaron Swartz, a computer programmer charged with multiple CFAA violations for downloading academic papers from a digital repository, is one of several high-profile CFAA cases in recent years. Swartz’s suicide while pending trial illustrates the CFAA’s excessive penalties.
Despite these criticisms, the CFAA protects US computer systems and networks from unauthorized entry and abuse. As technology advances, the law may change to handle new computer crimes. Since 1986, the CFAA has been amended several times. The Act was originally meant to combat computer fraud but has been updated to reflect new technology and challenges (O’Connor, 2019). The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act extended the CFAA. The amendment addressed terrorism and cybercrime by allowing the federal government to pursue computer-related threats to national security. The 1998 DMCA amended the CFAA. The DMCA made circumventing technical controls on copyrighted works illegal. This amendment addressed online copyright infringement.
The 2001 USA PATRIOT Act amended the CFAA. The Act’s “protected computers” definition was extended to help the government uncover and prosecute cybercrime. Computer-related crimes received harsher punishments. The 2008 Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act amended the CFAA. The Act made it illegal to transmit or receive computer-derived personal information without permission knowingly. The changes were intended to prevent identity theft and secure personal data.
After internet activist Aaron Swartz committed suicide in 2013, the Aaron Swartz Suicide Prevention Act was proposed to amend the CFAA. The Act limited the CFAA and reduced penalties for certain computer crimes. It was never enacted. In 2015, the Obama administration proposed narrowing the CFAA and reducing penalties for certain crimes. The planned changes were never passed. The 2018 CLOUD Act amended the CFAA. Law enforcement’s power to investigate and prosecute cybercrime was enhanced by the Act (Goanta & Zarras, 2021).
Inadequacies of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The CFAA criminalizes digital fraud and abuse. The 1980s law has been amended to stay up with technology (Goanta & Zarras, 2021). One of the most important federal laws that combat cybercrime like hacking, identity theft, and computer scams is the CFAA. Government, financial, and other businesses and people depend on the CFAA. The Act protects confidential data-storing and transmitting computer systems from unauthorized entry. CFAA violators face criminal and civil sanctions.
Cybercrime has changed, and so has the CFAA. The law was first used in criminal cases. Civil trials began in 1994 (Lashway & Stein, 2022). This amendment allowed companies and individuals to sue for CFAA violation-related losses. Despite its success in combating hacking, the CFAA has several flaws. The Act’s outdated penalties are a major drawback. Cybercrime is lighter than bank robbery. The CFAA needs revision due to this flaw. The CFAA is vital to hacking prevention and prosecution. However, its rules need to be updated and have several flaws. This study analyzes the CFAA and proposes improvements to combat cybercrime.
Adequacies of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The CFAA has successfully combated cybercrime. In 2018, the US Department of Justice prosecuted 29-year-old Russian hacker Roman Valerevich Seleznev for stealing and selling over 2.9 million credit card data. Seleznev was found guilty of 38 counts, including hacking, wire fraud, and identity theft, and sentenced to 27 years in jail and ordered to pay $170 million to the impacted companies. The Mirai botnet group is another example of how the CFAA combats hacking. The Mirai botnet launched DDoS strikes on websites, disrupting them. After pleading guilty to creating and using the Mirai botnet, three people received five years of probation and $127,000 in restitution in 2018 (Goanta & Zarras, 2021).
In 2019, the US Department of Justice indicted two Chinese hackers for hacking US and international companies computer systems. Hacking, conspiracy, and severe identity theft were among the hackers’ charges. The indictment claims that hackers stole various companies’ sensitive business information, including intellectual property, and caused significant financial losses. Hackers may be imprisoned and fined (Goanta & Zarras, 2021). These cases show how the CFAA has helped law enforcement prosecute computer and online criminals. The CFAA’s harsh sanctions, including imprisonment and fines, have deterred cybercrime.
In high-profile cases, the CFAA has deterred hacking. Aaron Swartz, an internet activist, was charged with violating the CFAA for downloading academic papers from JSTOR, a digital library of academic journals. Swartz was charged with wire, computer, and protected computer theft. In 2013, Swartz committed suicide rather than facing a 35-year prison term under the CFAA, sparking a public debate on the prosecution of cybercrime (Lashway & Stein, 2022). The 2011 arrest of Anonymous and LulzSec hacker “Sabu” illustrates the CFAA’s deterrent impact. Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu, was charged with CFAA computer hacking, identity fraud, and other cybercrimes (Leahy, 2022). Sabu received time served and supervised release for his FBI assistance. Sabu’s case illustrates the CFAA’s ability to dismantle cybercriminal networks and bring offenders to justice.
Despite these high-profile cases, some critics have claimed that the CFAA’s deterrent impact is overstated and that most cybercrimes go unpunished. Many cybercriminals work abroad, where US law enforcement cannot reach them (Goanta & Zarras, 2021). The CFAA has also been criticized for being too broad and vague, making it difficult to apply and raising fears that it may be used to prosecute legitimate activities like security research and whistleblowing. The CFAA has prosecuted cybercrimes and deterred some people from committing them, but its deterrent impact is hard to measure. However, the CFAA must be monitored and reformed to prevent it from stifling legitimate activities or unfairly punishing minor or unintentional breaches.
Proposed Changes to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has helped prosecute cybercrime, but some of its provisions are obsolete and must be updated. This section will explore how to improve the CFAA and fight cybercrime. Raising severe cybercrime penalties is one of the most important changes. As mentioned, cybercriminals receive lighter sentences than real criminals. This leniency is unpopular and has increased hacking. Thus, the law should prioritize severe and extreme lawbreakers (Leahy, 2022). To prioritize serious offenders, minor crimes should be excluded, and property security should be expanded. The CFAA has mitigated cybercrime. It has not protected private property as well. Thus, personal property security requires law reform. This shift guarantees cybercrime victims justice and compensation.
The planned changes require a CFAA amendment. Congress must approve and enact the changes promptly for effective implementation. To support changes, Congress must be informed effectively (Lashway & Stein, 2022). To execute, a plan should be created and implemented immediately. The CFAA should be changed and rewritten to deter and prosecute cybercriminals. Focusing on severe offenders ensures appropriate punishment. Cybercrime victims will receive justice and compensation from increased property security. Changes will stop cyber criminals.
Conclusion
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has helped prosecute cybercrime, but some of its provisions are obsolete and must be updated. This section will explore how to improve the CFAA and fight cybercrime. Raising severe cybercrime penalties is one of the most important changes. As mentioned, cybercriminals receive lighter sentences than real criminals. This leniency is unpopular and has increased hacking. Thus, the law should prioritize severe and extreme lawbreakers. To prioritize serious offenders, minor crimes should be excluded, and property security should be expanded. The CFAA has mitigated cybercrime. It has not protected private property as well. Thus, personal property security requires law reform. This shift guarantees cybercrime victims justice and compensation.
The planned changes require a CFAA amendment. Congress must approve and enact the changes promptly for effective implementation. To support changes, Congress must be informed effectively. To execute, a plan should be created and implemented immediately. The CFAA should be changed and rewritten to deter and prosecute cybercriminals. Focusing on severe offenders ensures appropriate punishment. Cybercrime victims will receive justice and compensation from increased property security. Changes will stop cyber criminals.
REFERENCES
Lashway, S. T., & Stein, M. M. (2022). SIGNS INSCRIBED ON A GATE: THE IMPACT OF VAN BUREN V. UNITED STATES ON CIVIL CLAIMS UNDER THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT. Western New England Law Review, 44(1), 109. https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol44/iss1/5/
Thurston, J. (2022). Cyberwarfare and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In Boston College Intellectual Property and Technology Forum (Vol. 2022, pp. 1-17). https://dashboard.lira.bc.edu/downloads/9afaf8a1-b50b-467e-98fc-f51f05467a48
Leahy, G. F. (2022). Keeping Gates Down: Further Narrowing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the Wake of Van Buren. William & Mary Business Law Review, 14(1), 215. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr/vol14/iss1/6/
O’Connor, M. J. (2019). Standing Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Penn St. L. Rev., 124, 743. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/dlr124§ion=26
Goanta, C., & Zarras, A. (2021). Ransomware: Notes on the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the CoE International Convention on Cybercrime. TTLF Working Papers, 82, 1-21. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/42052
write