![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit.svg/640px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
United States v. John (2010)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see United States v. John.
In United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (2010) [1] United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit interpreted the term "exceeds authorized access" in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(6) [2] and concluded that access to a computer may be exceeded if the purposes for which access has been given are exceeded.[1]
Quick Facts United States v. John, Court ...
United States v. John | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
Full case name | United States of America v. Dimetriace Eva Lavon John |
Decided | February 9, 2010 |
Citation | 597 F.3d 263 (2010) |
Case history | |
Prior actions | District Court for the Northern District of Texas convicted the defendant of conspiracy to commit access device fraud, fraud in connection with an access device and exceeding authorized access to the employer's computer internal system. |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Jerry E. Smith, Priscilla Owen and Catharina Haynes |
Case opinions | |
The Fifth Circuit affirmed appellant's convictions, but vacated her sentence and remanded for further proceedings. | |
Decision by | Priscilla Owen |
Keywords | |
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act |
Close
In particular, the court ruled that an employee would exceed authorized access to a protected computer if he or she used that access to obtain or steal information as part of criminal scheme.[1]
This case addresses the issue of the distinction between authorized access to information and subsequent use of information obtained through an authorized access for the purposes of CFAA.