Posted on 11/03/2017 9:06:07 AM PDT by markomalley
A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues has this advice to the unnamed Twitter employee said to have pulled the plug on President Trump's email account: "Don't say anything and get a lawyer."
Tor Ekeland told The Hill that while the facts of the case are still unclear and the primary law used to prosecute hackers is murky and unevenly applied, there is a reasonable chance the Twitter employee violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Twitter announced Thursday evening that "a Twitter customer support employee... on the employee’s last day" intentionally cut off service to President Trump's Twitter account. Service was restored in 11 minutes.
The outage of Trump tweets was met with celebration and disgust from either side of the partisan divide.
The CFAA states that unauthorized use of a "protected" computer system is against the law. The definition of protected is very broad and in practice could refer to any computer.
"If this happened in California, where Twitter is headquartered if they were no longer an employee at the time — particularly if their employment had been terminated — or if they had not been authorized to suspend or delete accounts, they could have broken the law," said Ekeland.
The CFAA is widely considered to be, as Ekeland explained it, "a mess."
Various courts around the country have come up with seemingly contradictory rulings on what unauthorized access actually means. Ekeland said the Ninth Circuit, covering the state of California, has itself issued rulings at odds with itself that would have an impact on the Trump twitter account fiasco as a potential case.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that employees do not violate the CFAA if they exceed their workplace computer policies. It has also ruled that employees who have been told they do not have permission to access a system cannot legally access it. Depending on which ruling a court leans on the hardest, a current Twitter employee without permission to shutter accounts may have violated the law by nixing Trump's account.
An employee who was tasked with monitoring accounts and given the ability to suspend them would have a good case that no law was broken, said Ekeland. An employee whose time at the company had technically ended would have the least to argue with.
"The employee could be in a lot of trouble. This was not just unauthorized access, but damage," said Ekeland, noting that causing $5000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence. With the amount of traffic Trump's tweets garner for Twitter's business, that could be fairly easy to prove.
The CFAA is both a criminal and civil statute, which could also open up the employee for a potential lawsuit.
But there are a lot of questions still to answer before anyone could make a thorough analysis of what laws were broken. Even with the facts, the conflicting Ninth circuit opinions can make the analysis difficult.
"You will probably see this as a law school exam question this year," said Ekeland.
I guarantee you this former employee was (1) under 30, (2) liberal, and (3) university educated.
I think they mean a publicist and an agent. I hear that Kevin Spacey’s are available.
I guarantee you he/she is not going to be able to keep his/her mouth shut about it, either.
heh heh...
And now you can add “And very sorry...(that he/she got caught).
However an experience like this at a young age might just knock the liberal right the hell out of him/her...kinda “scared straight”?
No. 2 will guarantee the former employee will not be prosecuted.
"...I guarantee you this former employee was (1) under 30, (2) liberal, and (3) university-educated..."
[(3) university educated.]
It’s really sad how that phrase has turned into an oxymoron....
“IT” will probably run for senate or even president
.....and looks like the twerp in the many car insurance commercials that are out there with male subjects, all twerpy little pussies
This CRIME was done by a damn SJW! (Social Justice Warrior!)
They probably hated anything Trump tweeted. This ninny no doubt thought that since it was their last day, what harm could it do them? However, aside from the legal implications, companies do tend to frown on last-day sabotage. Even Twitter, I’ll wager. Word gets around.
You are so right. Every msm and late night ‘comedy’ show will want them on to celebrate and reward this person. They will be rewarded with fame and money.
Because they are likely getting major reach-arounds from “Le Resistance”, and think they are sort of hero.
(4) and a ditzy broad like that that other traitor from a few months ago.
The one with the weird name. WHAT was her name? Drawing a blank here.
Taking odds the perp’s name is some new age moniker similar in absurdity to “Reality Winner”.
Reality Winner. . . . . And what ever happened to her? (Don’t tell me.)
...and (4) owns a pussy hat
and (5) drives a Prius
and (6) cries often.
It will be curious to see what this little punk looks like. I’m guessing plenty of face metal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.