Computer crimes

American Criminal Law Review

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 233-274

  Audal, Joseph ^a   Lu, Quincy ^a   Roman, Peter ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44849132047     PISSN: 01640364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (416)

1. NAT'L INST. OF JUST., DOJ, COMPUTER CRIME: CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESOURCE MANUAL 2 (1989) [hereinafter DOJ COMPUTER CRIME MANUAL]; see BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004), crime (defining computer crime as "[a] crime involving the use of a computer"); Jo-Ann M. Adams, Comment, Controlling Cyberspace: Applying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the Internet, 12 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 403, 409 (1996) (defining computer crime as "those crimes where knowledge of a computer system is essential to commit the crime").
2. See, e.g., United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000) (finding Internet distribution of financial information constituted fraud against investors); eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1065-67 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (analyzing traditional trespass claim brought as a result of actions occurring on the Internet); see also infra Part III.B.1 (discussing Internet distribution of child pornography); infra Part III.B.4 (discussing copyright infringement).
3. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 852-53 (1997) (characterizing the Internet as "an international network of interconnected computers . . . [with] content . . . as diverse as human thought . . . comparable . . . to both a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications and a sprawling mall offering goods and services.").
4. See Neal Kumar Katyal, Criminal Law in Cyberspace, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 1003, 1013 (2001) (describing different types of computer crimes with no real-world analogue);
5. Eric J. Sinrod & William P. Reilly, Cyber-Crimes: A Practical Approach to the Application of Federal Computer Crime Laws, 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 177, 181-87 (2000) (discussing "hacking," which involves unauthorized access to computer files, programs, or websites).
6. See Stephen P. Heymann, Legislating Computer Crime, 34 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 373, 373-91 (1997) (analyzing technological advances that require new criminal legislation).
7. See Joseph M. Olivenbaum, Ctrl-Alt-Delete: Rethinking Federal Computer Crime Legislation, 27 SETON HALL L. REV. 574, 575 n.4 (1997) (arguing there exists a "protean difficulty [in] defining a computer crime"). Compare Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda, 390 F. Supp. 2d 479, 499 (D. Md. 2005) (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 2701 is directed against unauthorized users gaining access to protected computers rather than against authorized users gaining access for larcenous acts), with Int'l Airport Ctrs., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420 (7th Cir. 2006) ("[18 U.S.C. § 1030] is concerned with . . . attacks by virus and worm writers . . . from the outside, and attacks by disgruntled programmers.").
8. See Marc S. Friedman & Kristin Bissinger, " Infojacking": Crimes on the Information Super Highway, 5 J. PROPRIETARY RTS. 2, 2 (1997);
9. see also Olivenbaum, supra note 6, at 575 n.4 (arguing that victim reluctance to report computer crimes make statistics suspect); Bradley Graham, Lack of Disclosure Impedes Development of Safeguards, WASH. POST, Feb. 28, 1998, at A6.
10. See Olivenbaum, supra note 6, at 575 n.4 (arguing dual system of prosecution renders statistics suspect).
11. U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, INFORMATION SECURITY: COMPUTER ATTACKS AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POSE INCREASING RISKS, GAO/AIMD 96-84, 3 (1996) (revealing the Defense Information Systems Agency intentionally "attacked" 38,000 DOD computers to test security and of the 24,700 penetrations only 4% were detected, and only 27% of those were reported).
12. Hedda Litwin, DOJ Launches Survey of Cyber Crime Stats, CYBER CRIME NEWSL., March-April 2006, at 19, http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/2006-mar-apr-cyber.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
13. See DOJ COMPUTER CRIME MANUAL, supra note 1.
14. See id.
15. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 768 N.E.2d 529, 532 (Mass. 2002) (affirming several convictions including burglary conviction for theft of computers); State v. Geer, 799 So. 2d 698 (La. Ct. App. 2001) (upholding sentencing of a man who pled guilty to state burglary charges for stealing a computer and other items).
16. See, e.g., United States v. Coviello, 225 F.3d 54, 62 (1st Cir. 2000) (stating where defendant is convicted for conspiracy to transport stolen computer disks in interstate commerce, a sentence enhancement is warranted based on the value of the intellectual property located on the disks).
17. See DOJ COMPUTER CRIME MANUAL, supra note 1, at 2.
18. See Reid Skibell, Cybercrimes & Misdemeanors: A Reevaluation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 909, 919-921 (2003).
19. See Julie Tamaki, Famed Hacker Is Indicted by U.S. Grand Jury, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 27, 1996, at B1 (stating notorious hacker became an "anti-authority hero in the world of renegade hackers" when he caused millions of dollars in damage); see also Sinrod & Reilly, supra note 4, at 183-85 (discussing motives of hackers, such as sending a political message, being a disaffected employee, or thrill-seeking).
20. See Bob Drogin, U.S. Scurries to Erect Cyber-Defenses Security: As Threat Rises, Government Task Force Prepares for Internet Combat, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 31, 1999, at A1 (mentioning that most computer crimes pending at the FBI involve disgruntled employees who sabotage computers for revenge);
21. Donna Howell, Network Security Hackers, Security Firms Wage Code War, INV.'S BUS. DAILY, May 2, 2000, at A8 (discussing how a bank's computer network was secure from external hackers, but that an employee had launched an attack against the bank's computers from inside the system).
22. Leef Smith, Web Marauder Pleads Guilty; U.S. Government Sites Were Among Targets of 'Zyklon,' WASH. POST, Sept. 8, 1999, at B2.
23. See, e.g., Boucher v. Sch. Bd. of the Sch. Dist. of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 825-29 (7th Cir. 1998) (allowing student to be expelled after he wrote an article about how to hack into the school's computer which was published in an underground newspaper); Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468, 476-77 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (allowing parents to be held civilly liable for charges when their sons hacked the phone company's authorization and access codes).
24. See e.g., Cassell Bryan-Low, Virus for Hire: Growing Number Of Hackers Attack Web Sites for Cash - Entrepreneur Asked a Team To Mastermind Strikes Against Rivals, U.S. Says - WeaKnees on Its Knees, WALL ST. J., Nov. 30, 2004, at A1 (describing the indictment of a businessman who paid someone to launch a virus attack against WeaKnees over a proposed business deal);
25. see also. Bob Sullivan, Consumers Still Falling for Phish: FTC, DOJ Announce Prosecution of Teen-ager, MSNBC (Mar. 22, 2004) (discussing case of 19-year-old college student who pleaded guilty to stealing identities by using a "phishing" scam), available at http://www.msnbc.msn. com/id/4580909 (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
26. See Matthew B. Prince, After CAN-SPAM, How States Can Stay Relevant in the Fight Against Unwanted Messages: How a Children's Protection Registry Can be Effective, and is Not Preempted, Under the New Federal Anti-Spam Law, 22 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 29, 45 (2003).
27. S. REP. NO. 108-102, at 2 (2003).
28. Id. at 6; see Thomas Claburn, Spam Costs Billions, INFO. WK., Feb. 3, 2005, http://www.informationweek.com/story/ showArticle.jhtml?articleID=59300834 (last visited Jan. 22, 2008) (reporting a study found that spam costs U.S. companies $21.58 billion annually in lost productivity).
29. Katyal, supra note 4, at 1023.
30. Id. at 1024.
31. Id. at 1024 n. 57.
32. Id. at 1024.
33. Id. at 1026.
34. Katyal, supra note 4, at 1026.
35. Id.
36. Id. at 1025.
37. Id. See generally Robbin Rahman, Comment, Electronic Self-Help Repossession and You: A Computer Software Vendor's Guide to Staying Out of Jail, 48 EMORY L.J. 1477 (1999) (suggesting ways that software vendors can restrict their use of logic bombs to avoid legal difficulties).
38. Geoffrey A. North, Carnivore in Cyberspace: Extending the Electronic Communications Privacy Act's Framework to Carnivore Surveillance, 28 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 155, 163 (2002).
39. Rutrell Yasin, Sniffers Overhauled For E-Biz, INTERNET WK., May 5, 2000, at 1.
40. Troy Denkinger, The Basics of Sniffing, the Sysadmin's Eye Inside the Network, CHI. TRIB., Apr. 6, 2000, at 1.
41. Id.
42. Katyal, supra note 4, at 1027.
43. Id. at 1026.
44. Id.
45. Id. at 1027.
46. Id. at 1026.
47. See Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296, 305 n. 4 (Cal. 2003) (citing eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc. 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1060-1061 (N.D. Cal. 2000)), Laura Quitter, The Continuing Expansion of Cyberspace Trespass to Chattels, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 421, 423-424 (2002);
48. Maureen A. O'Rourke, Property Rights and Competition on the Internet: In Search of an Appropriate Analogy, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 561, 570-571 (2001).
49. See generally EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001).
50. DOJ COMPUTER CRIME MANUAL, supra note 1, at 2.
51. See, e.g., United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 2005) (affirming conviction of defendant who obtained credit card numbers by hacking into secure websites and computer networks).
52. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 237 F.3d 625, 628-29 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding enhanced sentence because of computer use in violating non-computer-dependent child pornography statute).
53. See, e.g., United States v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222, 227 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding satellite descrambler program that was "more than seventy-percent similar to the copyrighted software" violated federal copyright statute).
54. See, e.g., United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sentence for violation of federal wire fraud statute where defendant posted a fraudulent solicitation for money on a classified-ads website).
55. See discussion infra Part III.B.1.
56. U.S. CONST amend. I.
57. See, e.g., Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 118 (1991) ("[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.").
58. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) ("[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation.").
59. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942) (stating that the government may punish a limited class of speech "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace"). But see COMPUTER CRIME & INTELL. PROP. SEC., DOJ, LEGAL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED PROHIBITIONS AGAINST RACIST PROPAGANDA ON THE INTERNET: THE U.S. PERSPECTIVE, PRESENTED IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND AT HATE SPEECH AND THE INTERNET (1997) [hereinafter HATE SPEECH] http://www.usdoj.gov/ criminal/cybercrime/racismun.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008) (explaining that words on the Internet are unlikely to breach the peace because of the lack of immediate proximity).
60. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-08 (1969) (holding that threats that imply action at an uncertain and future remote time are not true threats and therefore are protected under the First Amendment).
61. See HATE SPEECH, supra note 54 (stating that threats of harm receive no First Amendment protection and threatening e-mails or statements via Internet could in many cases be punished); but see United States v. Baker, 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995) (granting defendant's motion to quash indictment against him for statements he made over the Internet because they were not true threats).
62. See HATE SPEECH, supra note 54 (explaining that harassing speech must do more than simply anger or distress to lose constitutional protection).
63. See id. ("U.S. law does not recognize the notion of 'harassment' directed at a general class of persons.").
64. See infra Part III.B.1 (describing the constitutional challenges to federal child pornography statutes).
65. U.S. CONST. amend. IV ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.").
66. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).
67. United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 1999) (upholding a search warrant authorizing the seizure of "[a]ny and all computer software and hardware, . . . computer disks, disk drives" and "[a]ny and all visual depictions, in any format or media, of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct [as defined by the statute]"); United States v. Sawyer, 799 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1986) (same).
68. Upham, 168 F.3d 535.
69. Sawyer, 799 F.2d at 1508 (holding that in cases involving a "pervasive scheme to defraud, all the business records of the enterprise may properly be seized"); see also United States v. Grimmett, 439 F.3d 1263, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a search warrant authorizing the seizure of "computer equipment" was not overbroad because it contained "sufficiently particularized language requiring a nexus with child pornography"); United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 995-97 (7th Cir. 1998) (same).
70. Compare Upham, 168 F.3d at 532 (upholding warrant allowing seizure of computer equipment because it is "no easy task to search a well-laden hard drive" on the premises), with United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 1999) (invalidating the seizure of child pornography off the defendant's computer, when the search warrant only authorized search for "documentary evidence pertaining to the sale and distribution of controlled substances").
71. See United States v. Gray, 78 F. Supp. 2d 524, 529 (E.D. Va. 1999) ("[The] Agent [ ] was not required to accept as accurate any file name or suffix and limit his search accordingly."); United States v. Sissler, No. 1:90-CR-12, 1991 WL 239000, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 1991) (same).
72. See, e.g., United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming admission of printout made from computer disk seized in search because disk from which printout was made contained drug ledger and was found at defendant's home).
73. See United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 994-95 (7th Cir. 1998) (upholding a warrant allowing officers to seize defendant's computer from a computer repair shop); United States v. Gawrysiak, 972 F. Supp. 853, 866 (D.N.J. 1997) (approving seizure of computer files for off-site search because the Fourth Amendment "does not require the agent to spend days at the site viewing the computer screens"); see also Sissler, 1991 WL 239000, at *3-4 (same).
74. See United States v. Musson, 650 F. Supp. 525, 532 (D. Colo. 1986) ("[I]n the age of modern technology . . . the warrant could not be expected to describe . . . the precise form the records would take." (quoting United States v. Reyes, 798 F.2d 380, 383 (10th Cir. 1986))).
75. See Sissler, 1991 WL 239000, at *5 n.7 (declining to uphold seizure of printer on grounds of practicality because they contain no internal memory and can be used with a variety of computers).
76. Compare State v. Lehman, 736 A.2d 256, 261 (Me. 1999), with Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170, 1173-74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003).
77. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
78. Id.
79. See COMPUTER CRIME & INTELL. PROP. SECT., DOJ, FIELD GUIDANCE ON NEW AUTHORITIES THAT RELATE TO COMPUTER CRIME AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ENACTED IN THE USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001, http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/PatriotActhtm (last visited Jan. 22, 008).
80. United States v. Forrester, 495 F.3d 1041, 1049 (9th Cir. 2007).
81. See United States v. Hambrick, No. 99-4793, 2000 WL 1062039, at *4 (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2000) (holding that the defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in information provided to his ISP, including his IP address, name, and billing address); see also United States v. Kennedy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1110 (D. Kan. 2000).
82. See generally Steven A. Osher, Privacy, Computers and the Patriot Act: The Fourth Amendment Isn't Dead, but No One Will Insure It, 54 FLA. L. REV. 521 (2002).
83. See id. at 539-40 (claiming that skeptics believe the FBI is acquiring more information when it uses its Internet surveillance software, "Carnivore," than it should be entitled to under the Constitution).
84. See United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572, 581 (D.N.J. 2001) (holding that the use of a keystroke logger did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights); Ted Bridis, FBI Develops Eavesdropping Tools, AP ONLINE, Nov. 22, 2001.
85. See United States v. Lamb, 945 F. Supp. 441 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
86. Id. at 459.
87. United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[T]he nature of the crime, as set forth in this affidavit, provided 'good reason[ ]' to believe the computerized visual depictions . . . would be present . . . ten months later."); see also United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
88. See discussion infra Part III.B.5.b.
89. United States v. Mora, 821 F.2d 860, 863 n.3 (1st Cir. 1987).
90. Pub. L. No. 96-440, 94 Stat. 1879 (1980) (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa (2000)).
91. 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a)(1), (b)(1).
92. § 2000aa; see DePugh v. Sutton, 917 F. Supp. 690, 696-97 (W.D. Mo. 1996) (interpreting the unamended Privacy Protection Act as not protecting materials used in dissemination of child pornography).
93. See U.S. SENTENCING COMM'N, COMPUTER FRAUD WORKING GROUP, REPORT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, 3 (1993).
94. Compare United States v. Farraj, 142 F. Supp. 2d 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (upholding application of NSPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2314, to the email transfer of stolen electronic data) and United States v. Kwan, No. 02 CR. 241(DAB), 2003 WL 21180401, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2003) (approving of Farraj), with United States v. Wang, 898 F. Supp. 758, 760 (D. Colo. 1995) (holding that a computer program does not qualify as "goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money" for purposes of NSPA) and United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535, 536-38 (D. Mass. 1994) (finding use of a computer bulletin board to copy copyrighted software does not involve "physical taking" and thus cannot be prosecuted under NSPA).
95. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 237 F.3d 625, 628-29 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding increased sentence due to computer use in violating child pornography statute).
96. See, e.g., AOL v. Nat'l Health Care Disc, Inc., 174 F. Supp. 2d 890, 898-99 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (holding defendant liable under statute for damage caused by unsolicited bulk e-mail); eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (considering whether violation of statute created potential for irreparable harm warranting issuance of a preliminary injunction).
97. See generally U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL (2007) [hereinafter U.S.S.G. MANUAL]. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court severed the provision that made the Guidelines mandatory, rendering them "effectively advisory." See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005); see also Kimbrough v. United States, 2007 WL 4292040, at *10, (U.S. Dec. 10, 2007) ("[W]hile [the federal sentencing statute] still requires a court to give respectful consideration to the Guidelines, see Gall v. United States, 2007 WL 4292116 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2007), Booker 'permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well.' Booker, 543 U.S. at 245-46.").
98. OFFICE OF LEGAL EDUC., DOJ, PROSECUTING COMPUTER CRIMES, at 109 (2006).
99. United States v. Petersen, 98 F.3d 502, 506-07 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding defendant's computer programming was a "special skill" and thus permitting enhancement under the Guidelines where defendant did not possess formal computer training but demonstrated knowledge of computers not shared by the general public). But see United States v. Lee, 296 F.3d 792, 796-99 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that developing a basic website does not require "special skills" as established in Petersen); United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 323 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding defendant's computer skills were not "particularly sophisticated" as required in Petersen, and therefore finding upward departure to be unwarranted).
100. Pub. L. No. 98-473, Title II, Chapter XXI, § 2102(a), 98 Stat. 1837, 2190; see also H.R. REP. NO. 98-894, at 9 (1984) (discussing legislative history of Pub. L. No. 98-473 and the need for computer specific criminal laws).
101. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-474, § 2, 100 Stat. 1213; Pub. L. No. 100-690, Title VII, § 7065, 102 Stat. 4404 (1988); USA Patriot Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, § 814, 115 Stat. 272, 382-84; Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 225, 116 Stat. 2135, 2156; 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002).
102. § 1030; see Jo-Ann M. Adams, Comment, Controlling Cyberspace: Applying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the Internet, 12 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 403, 424 (1996) (highlighting changes made by 1988, 1989, and 1990 amendments).
103. For example, in 2005 and 2006, the 109th Congress considered (without resolution) several amendments to Title 18 including H.R. 5318, which would add specific provisions to § 1030 regarding remote access, remove some cyber-crime stipulations regarding foreign contact and mandate increased interagency cooperation and § 1789, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, which would specify the criminal penalties under § 1039.
104. 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
105. Id. at 870-72.
106. Id. at 878-84.
107. Id. at 868-69.
108. See id. at 880.
109. Id. at 870.
110. See id. at 872-73.
111. 47 U.S.C. § 231.
112. ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
113. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title V, §§ 501-561, 110 Stat. 56, 133-43 (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1462, 1465, 2422 (1996) and as scattered sections of 47 U.S.C).
114. 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(B).
115. § 223(d).
116. § 223(a)(1)(B).
117. Reno, 521 U.S. 844.
118. See id. at 863-64 (affirming district court finding that the statute "sweeps more broadly than necessary and thereby chills the expression of adults").
119. See id. at 864-66 (distinguishing § 223(d) from similar, constitutionally permissible enactments because it did not require that patently offensive material lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (citing Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) (banning certain magazine sales to persons under age seventeen even though magazines were not necessarily obscene to adults))).
120. Id. (holding that the CDA violated the First Amendment because it: (a) chilled free speech; (b) criminalized legitimate protected speech; (c) must be narrowly tailored since it regulated a fundamental freedom; (d) regulated the content of speech so time, place, and manner analysis was inapplicable; and (e) was unconstitutionally overbroad).
121. See id. at 872-73 (citing Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 18 (1973) (permitting states to ban obscene speech in order to ensure general welfare of their citizens)).
122. 47 U.S.C. § 223(a).
123. U.S.S.G. MANUAL § 2G3.1(b)(1)(C) (2007).
124. Id. § 2G3.1(b)(1)(E).
125. Id. § 2G3.1(b)(1)(A).
126. Id. § 2G3.1(b)(4).
127. Pub. L. No. 104-208, tit. I, § 121, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-26 (1996) (amending 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2243, 2251, 2252, 2256, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, and adding 18 U.S.C. § 2252A).
128. §§ 2252A, 2256 (2006).
129. See § 2256(8)(B).
130. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (holding that § 2256(8)(B), (D) were overbroad because there was no compelling governmental interest in prohibiting speech that is not obscene or child pornography).
131. Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650.
132. See id. § 503, 117 Stat. at 680 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B)).
133. United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F.3d 434, 436 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Wollet 164 Fed. Appx. 672, 676 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Destio, 153 Fed. Appx. 888, 889 (3d Cir. 2005).
134. The Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (striking down the Violence Against Women Act), significantly curtailed the power of Congress to regulate activity that is purely intrastate and non-economic in nature.
135. See United States v. Robinson, 137 F.3d 652, 656 (1st Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Corp, 236 F.3d 325, 332 (6th Cir. 2001) ("[J]urisdictional components of constitutional statutes are to be read as meaningful restrictions."). But see United States v. McCoy, 323 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he limiting jurisdictional factor is almost useless here, since all but the most self-sufficient child nomographers will rely on film, cameras, or chemicals that traveled in interstate commerce.").
136. See Robinson, 137 F.3d at 656 ("The jurisdictional element in § 2252(a)(4)(B) requires an answer on a case-by-case basis.").
137. United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hampton, 260 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2001).
138. United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2003).
139. See Corp, 236 F.3d at 332 ("[W]e do not determine the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of the purely intrastate dealing in child pornography."); McCoy, 323 F.3d 1114.
140. 545 U.S. 1, 24-33 (2005) (reconciling Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, with Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127-28 (1942) (permitting federal regulation of local activity if there is a "rational basis" for concluding that such activity in the aggregate can substantially affect interstate commerce)).
141. See United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding § 2252A(a) unconstitutional as applied to intrastate possession of child pornography); United States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73 (4th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Jeronimo-Bautista, 425 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding § 2251(a) as unconstitutional for the same reasons).
142. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A) (2000).
143. § 2256(8)(C).
144. 18 U.S.C. § 1030. This Article refers to § 1030 as "CFAA" when discussing its provisions generally, and as the "1996 Act" when distinguishing between the statute embodied in the 1996 amendments and its predecessors and successors.
145. See, e.g., Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com LLC, 386 F.3d 930, 930 (9th Cir. 2004); AOL v. Nat'l Health Care Disc., Inc., 174 F. Supp. 2d 890, 898 (N.D. Iowa 2002).
146. § 1030(e)(2).
147. § 1030(a)(1).
148. See S. Rep. No. 99-432, at 6 (obtaining includes reading); AOL v. National Health Care Discount, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (same).
149. "Financial institution" is defined as: (A) an institution with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; (B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank; (C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration; (D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank; (E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971; (F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; (H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978); and (I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act. § 1030(e)(4)(A)-(I).
150. § 1030(a)(2); see AOL v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444, 450 (E.D. Va. 1998) (finding that defendants' use of AOL membership to harvest e-mail addresses of other AOL members in order to send bulk e-mail advertisements ("spam"), in violation of AOL's terms of service, violated § 1030(a)(2)(C) by exceeding authorized access and obtaining information).
151. § 1030(a)(3).
152. Id.
153. § 1030(a)(4). There is an exception if the defendant only obtained computer time with a value of less than $5,000 per year. See id.
154. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i).
155. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii).
156. EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 582 n.10 (1st Cir. 2001); SecureInfo Corp. v. Telos Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Va. 2005); See Orin Kerr, Cybercrime's Scope: Interpreting "Access" and "Authorization" in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1596, 1624-1642 (2003) (highlighting the courts' struggle with interpreting "access" and "authorization").
157. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii).
158. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(iii); see AOL v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444, 450-51 (E.D. Va. 1998) (finding defendants violated § 1030(a)(5)(C) of the 1996 Act by accessing computers within AOL's network without authorization and causing damage to its computer network, reputation, and goodwill).
159. See § 1030(c)(3)(A) (making a reckless violation a felony).
160. See § 1030(c)(2)(A) (making a negligent violation a misdemeanor).
161. § 1030(e)(8); see also In re AOL Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1372-1374 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (analyzing the ambiguity of pre-USA Patriot Act assessment of damages under § 1030(a)(5)).
162. § 1030(a)(6).
163. Id.
164. § 1030(a)(7).
165. Id.
166. § 1030(d)(1).
167. § 1030(a)(1).
168. § 1030(d)(2); § 1030(a)(1).
169. § 1030(a)(1).
170. § 1030(a)5.
171. 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i).
172. § 1030(a)(4).
173. See United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1078-79 (1st Cir. 1997) (reversing conviction because nothing of value was obtained by defendant's mere browsing of IRS files).
174. See id. at 1078.
175. § 1030(a)(5)(B).
176. § 1030(a)(5)(B)(i).
177. § 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii)-(v).
178. § 1030(b).
179. § 1030(c).
180. § 1030(e)(10).
181. § 1030(c)(1), (c)(4)(A) (violating § 1030(a)(1) and (a)(5)(A)(i) respectively).
182. § 1030(c)(2)(A).
183. § 1030(c)(3)(A), (c)(4)(B).
184. § 1030(c)(2)(B).
185. § 1030(c)(3)(A), (c)(4)(B).
186. § 1030(c)(2)(C), (c)(3)(B).
187. § 1030(c)(1)(B), (c)(4)(C) (violating § (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii) respectively).
188. § 1030(c)(5)(A).
189. § 1030(c)(5)(B).
190. U.S.S.G. MANUAL § 2M3.2(a) (2007).
191. Id. § 2B1.1. For a complete explanation of the application of section 2B1.1 and its loss table, see the MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD article in this issue.
192. Id. § 2B2.3.
193. Id. § 2B3.2.
194. Id. § 2X1.1 (setting base offense levels identical to those assigned to respective completed offenses, but reducing levels by three points if acts necessary to commit the offense were not completed or nearly completed).
195. See, e.g., Jay Lyman, Spam Costs $20 Billion Each Year in Lost Productivity, E-COMMERCE TIMES, Dec. 29, 2003, http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/32478.html (last visited Jan. 22, 2008) (reporting a study stating the cost to businesses from spam is increasing at a rate of more than 100% per year).
196. See Jeffrey D. Sullivan & Michael B. DeLeeuw, Spam After CAN-SPAM: How Inconsistent Thinking Has Made A Hash Out of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Policy, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 887, 891-92 (2004) (discussing the history of anti-spam legislation in the United States).
197. Pub. L. No. 108-187, 117 Stat 2699 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701-7713 and 18 U.S.C. § 1037).
198. Sullivan & De Leeuw, supra note 191, at 888 (explaining Congress' attempt at responding to the rapidly growing problem of unsolicited email).
199. § 1037.
200. Id.
201. § 7704.
202. Federal Trade Commission, The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers, FTC FACTS FOR BUSINESS, Apr. 2004 (explaining the range of fines and criminal penalties for violations of the CAN-SPAM Act), http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
203. Id.
204. Id.
205. See BUS. SOFTWARE ALLIANCE & INT'L DATA CORP., infra note 397 (finding that the U.S. software makers lost $6.645 billion to pirated software).
206. The Software & Information Industry Association recognizes ten kinds of software piracy. Software & Info. Indus. Ass'n, What is Piracy? Types of Software Piracy, http://www.siia.com/piracy/whatis.asp (last visited Jan.
207. Id. at 7 (stating programs that took years and millions of dollars to develop can be "duplicated or illegally distributed in minutes with the touch of a button").
208. Id. at 15 (claiming a computer user can duplicate an otherwise expensive product in bulk for no more than the cost of a blank compact disc).
209. Id. at 7 (noting the quality of pirated software is only slightly inferior to the original).
210. See KENNETH COHEN ET AL., U.S. SENTENCING COMM'N, NO ELECTRONIC THEFT ACT, POLICY DEVELOPMENT TEAM REPORT (Feb. 1999), http://www.ussc.gov/agendas/02_99/NETBRF99.PDF (last visited Jan. 22, 2008) (noting that investigators may have trouble tracking down the creators of infringing websites, since the creators often change their ISPs to avoid detection).
211. Peter Brown & Richard Raysman, Napster Threatens Copyright Law, 224 N.Y.L.J. 3, 3 (2000) (discussing the ease with which copyrighted music can be distributed via the Internet with little or no degradation in quality and exploring the potential for massive copyright infringement because of technological advances).
212. Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 506(a); Criminal Penalties for Copyright Infringement Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233 (1992) (codified as 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (2000)) (amending § 2319 to provide felony penalties for some copyright violations).
213. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).
214. Id. An enforceable copyright must be registered with the Register of Copyrights, be original, and be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005).
215. § 506(a)(1); § 506(a)(2) ("Evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement"). Courts are split as to whether "willful" refers to intent to copy or intent to infringe. Compare Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882, 889 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting violators are liable for subconscious copyright infringement of musical compositions), with United States v. Moran, 757 F. Supp. 1046, 1052 (D. Neb. 1991) (accepting no intent to infringe argument).
216. § 506(a)(2).
217. OFFICE OF LEGAL EDUC., DOJ, PROSECUTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES, at 16 (3d ed. 2006) (citing § 506(a)(1)), http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/ ipma2006.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
218. § 109(a); See Bourne v. Walt Disney Co., 68 F.3d 621, 632-33 (2d Cir. 1995) (applying first sale doctrine to challenged conduct); Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L'anza Research Int'l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 152 (1998) ("[O]nce the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution.").
219. See Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Elec., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208, 212 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
220. § 109(d) (noting the first sale doctrine does not apply to "any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it"); Adobe Systems, Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (stating a copyright owner "does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement").
221. § 107.
222. Id.
223. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 584 (1994) (transformative uses more likely to be fair); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 449 (1984) (commercial uses are presumptively unfair, noncommercial and nonprofit activity is presumptively fair).
224. See, e.g., Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 563 (1985) (factual works more likely to be fair than fictional).
225. See, e.g., id. at 564-66 (the greater the size or importance of the portion of the work that is used the less likely the use falls under the "fair use" defense).
226. See id. at 568 ("To negate fair use, one need only show that if the challenged use 'should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.'" (quoting Sony, 464 U.S. at 451)).
227. 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (2000).
228. See § 2319(c)(1); see also U.S.S.G. MANUAL § 2B5.3 (2007).
229. See U.S.S.G. MANUAL app. A.
230. See id. § B5.3(a).
231. Id. cmt. n.2.
232. Id. § 2B5.3(b)(1).
233. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2863 (1998) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1205).
234. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1205.
235. § 1201(a)(1).
236. § 1201(a)(3)(B); see also U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998: U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE SUMMARY (Dec. 1998), 3-4, http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/ dmca.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
237. § 1201(a)(3)(A).
238. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (stating that it is a violation of § 1201 to place a hypertext link to another site that offers technology circumvention measures on your website, where the purpose of the hypertext link is to provide the user with access to a technology circumvention measure).
239. This category includes computer code designed to circumvent encryption software protecting a digital work. See id. In Reimerdes, the court declined to extend First Amendment protection to computer code because although it is "expressive," it is also functional, and the court may legitimately regulate the undesirable consequences of its functions. See id. at 304 (stating that the expressive element of computer code "no more immunizes its functional aspects from regulation than the expressive motives of an assassination immunize the assassin's action").
240. See, e.g., Sony Computer Entm't Am., Inc. v. GameMasters, 87 F Supp. 2d 976, 985 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (granting preliminary injunction based on evidence that the sale of "game enhancers," devices that circumvented a mechanism on the game console that ensured console would operate only when encrypted data was read from authorized CD-ROMs, likely violated § 1201); see also Davidson & Associates v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8rh Cir. 2005) (holding that the computer game purchasers' development of an alternative to the sellers' online gaming service, which allowed other purchasers to access the service without an encoded identification key, is considered "circumvention").
241. See RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., No. 2:99CV02070, 2000 WL 127311, at *2, *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000) (holding that the circumvention does not have to act directly against the technology protection measure itself).
242. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). With the exception of manufacturers of a certain type of VCR, manufacturers of devices that could be used to illegally copy or access copyrighted works are not mandated to implement technological measures preventing consumers from using it in that manner. See § 1201(c)(3).
243. See § 1201(d) (excepting non-profit library, archive, and educational institutions); § 1201(e) (excepting governmental law enforcement and intelligence activities); § 1201(f) (excepting reverse engineering in cases where a person has lawfully obtained a copy of a computer program in order to make it interoperable with other programs); § 1201(g) (excepting encryption research); § 1201(h) (providing exception for protection of minors); § 1201(i) (providing exception for personal privacy, where the technological measure or the work it protects invades that privacy); § 1201(j) (excepting security testing).
244. 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
245. Id. at 322 ("The use of technological means of controlling access to a copyrighted work may affect the ability to make fair uses of the work.").
246. Id. at 323 (stating Congress expressly considered this problem and included the exceptions listed in § 1201(d)-(j) in direct response).
247. See id. (reiterating Congress' conviction that this limitation preserves legitimate uses of the fair use defense).
248. § 1202.
249. § 1202(c).
250. § 1202(c)(8).
251. § 1202(a)-(b). But see Kelly v. Aribba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding an Internet search engine that stores and displays "thumbnail" versions of visual images without their copyright management information would be a prima facie violation of § 1202, but it is justified under the "fair use" doctrine).
252. § 1202(c)(7).
253. § 512. But see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming that file sharing service is not an ISP eligible for the safe harbor defense, because it is not a "passive conduit" for information transmission).
254. § 512; see also ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619, 625 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing notification requirements under DMCA and noting that, with respect to multiple works, it is not required to identify all of the works - a representative list is sufficient).
255. § 1204.
256. Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, 2701-2710, 3121-3126).
257. ECPA §§ 101-303. The Fifth Circuit interpreted ECPA as supplementing the Communications Act of 1934 (codified as amended at scattered sections of 47 U.S.C). Accordingly, the court held that concurrent prosecution under both acts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Crawford, 52 F.3d 1303, 1306-07 (5th Cir. 1995).
258. Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (the Act was divided into Title I, the Wiretap Act, Title II, the Stored Communications Act, and Title III, the Pen Register Act).
259. ECPA § 101(a) (amending § 2510(1)) (broadening statutory definition of communications covered to include those "affecting interstate or foreign commerce").
260. ECPA § 105(b) (amending § 2516) (granting law enforcement officers the power to file an application to a Federal judge to get authorization to intercept electronic communications where such interception may provide evidence of any Federal felony).
261. See United States v. Petersen, 98 F.3d 502, 504-05 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding ECPA conviction for hacking into telephone system).
262. See supra Section III.B. (discussing CFAA).
263. Compare United States v. Chick, 61 F.3d 682, 687-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (permitting government to use ECPA to prosecute defendant for pirating modified satellite descramblers), and United States v. Harrell, 983 F.2d 36, 37-38 (5th Cir. 1993) (acknowledging ECPA's proper application to modified satellite descramblers), with United States v. Shriver, 989 F.2d 898, 904-07 (7th Cir. 1992) (concluding § 2512 covers sale or ownership of satellite descramblers only if descramblers are designed primarily to pirate satellite-transmitted broadcasts).
264. 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a).
265. § 2701(a). See generally Orin Kerr, A User's Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator's Guide to Amending it, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1208 (2004).
266. § 2707(e); McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2006).
267. § 2701(c)(1).
268. § 2701(c)(2).
269. § 2701(b)(1)(A).
270. § 2701(b)(1)(B).
271. § 2701(b)(2).
272. See § 2707(a) (which authorizes civil suits against any "person or entity" other than the United States, in violation of ECPA's substantive provisions); see also Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.), 355 B.R. 225, 226 (D. Haw. 2006) (holding that damages may be assessed at $1,000 per violation); Organizacion JD Ltda. v. DOJ, 18 F.3d 91, 94-95 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (holding that governmental "entities" can be subject to liability under § 2707(a) where appellants were intended recipients of electronic fund transfers seized by DEA agents).
273. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521.
274. Pub. L. No. 99-508, tit. I, 100 Stat. 1848.
275. See S. REP. No. 90-1097 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112 (Title III codifies Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).
276. § 2511(1)(a).
277. § 2511.
278. § 2518(3)(c).
279. § 2518(4)-(5).
280. § 2518.
281. § 2518.
282. § 2516.
283. § 2518(5).
284. § 2518(6).
285. See "Carnivore" and the Fourth Amendment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (2000) (statement of Kevin V. DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ) [hereinafter DiGregory Statement] (explaining OEO reviews each proposed Title III application to ensure that interception satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements, and is in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations).
286. § 2520(d); McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2006).
287. § 2511(2(i).
288. § 2510(21).
289. See id.
290. Id.
291. See United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572, 581 (D.N.J. 2001) (holding that the use of a keystroke logger did not violate § 2510).
292. §§ 2511, 2513, 2520, 2521; see DiGregory Statement, supra note 280 (listing remedies for violating Title III by improperly intercepting electronic communications).
293. § 2511(4)(a).
294. § 2511(4)(b).
295. U.S.S.G. MANUAL § 2H3.1(a) (2007).
296. Id. § 2H3.1(b)(1).
297. Id. § 2H3.1(c)(1).
298. See § 2515; United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) (holding that statutory exclusionary rule of Title III provides protection beyond the judicially created exclusionary rule under Constitution for wiretap interception); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968).
299. See § 2520(a) (which authorizes civil suits against any "person or entity" other than the United States, in violation of ECPA's substantive provisions); see also Smoot v. United Transp. Union, 246 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2001); Brown v. Waddell, 50 F.3d 285, 294 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that law enforcement use of "clone pagers" to intercept numeric transmissions received on digital display pagers violated § 2511 and subjected state officials to civil liability).
300. United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc).
301. Id. at 80. But see Orin S. Kerr, COMPUTER CRIME LAW, 457 (2006) (noting that the court did not decide whether there was an interception but suggested in dicta that there was).
302. Councilman, 418 F.3d at 76-78.
303. Id. at 87 (Torruella, J., dissenting) (citing "Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (post-delivery); Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 113-14 (3d Cir. 2003) (post-delivery); United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (11th Cir. 2003) (on hard drive) . . . ; Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2002) (on website server) . . . ; Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457, 461-62 (5th Cir. 1994) (pre-retrieval)").
304. 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
305. Id. at 458.
306. Councilman, 418 F.3d at 70.
307. The court in Councilman implied that the transmission ends when the recipient opens the e-mail, id. at 71, but this language was not needed to decide the issue, since the e-mail was intercepted before being placed in the recipient's mail box, and may be dicta.
308. 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), (d)(7).
309. § 1028(a)(1); see, e.g., United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 165 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that aiding and abetting the production is also covered).
310. § 1028(a)(2).
311. E.g., § 1028(a)(3) (prohibiting possession of five or more false or stolen identification documents with the intent to use them unlawfully or transfer them).
312. § 1028(d)(4) ("[A] document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity; and appears to be issued by or under [such] authority.").
313. § 1028(a)(3)-(4).
314. § 1028(d)(2) ("[D]ocument-making implement means any . . . computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document a false identification document, or another document-making implement"); United States v. Cabrera, 208 F.3d 309, 314 (1st Cir. 2000) (defining "primarily used" as referring to "the particular use to which the defendant put the device, not its 'general' use within society").
315. § 1028(a)(5).
316. § 1028(d)(10).
317. § 1028(b)(2).
318. § 1028(b)(1).
319. § 1028(b)(3).
320. § 1028(b)(4).
321. U.S.S.G. MANUAL Table 2B1.1 (2007).
322. Id. §§ 2L2.1, 2L2.2, 2B1.1.
323. Id. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.19; see United States v. Kaminski, No. 99-1604, 2000 WL 1527932 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2000) (upholding upward departure based prior rape conviction and the likelihood false identification documents would be used to commit rape).
324. 18 U.S.C. § 1343. See generally the MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD article in this issue.
325. § 1343.
326. See United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that fraudulently soliciting for money on a website violated wire fraud statute); United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 580-81 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that fraudulent transfer of funds through a computer system violates wire fraud statute).
327. Compare United States v. Wang, 898 F. Supp. 758, 759 (D. Colo. 1995) (holding computer program is property and infringement may be prosecuted under both Copyright Act and wire fraud statute), with United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535, 540-44 (D. Mass. 1994) (dismissing wire fraud charge because infringement not criminal).
328. United States v. Romberg, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1018 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
329. § 1343.
330. Id.
331. 18 U.S.C. § 1961.
332. U.S.S.G. MANUAL app. A (2007).
333. Id. § 2C1.7(a), (b)(1)(A).
334. Id. § 2C1.7(b)(1)(A); see, e.g., United States v. Mack, 159 F.3d 208, 220 (6th Cir. 1998) (applying § 2 C1.7(b)(1)(B) to a prison security chief); United States v. ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961, 969 (4th Cir. 1995) (upholding increase in offense level pursuant to § 2C1.7(b)(1)(B) for wire fraud conviction based on video lottery systems because defendant was public official holding high-level decision-making or sensitive position).
335. U.S.S.G. MANUAL § 2B1.1 (2007); see, e.g., United States v. Catalfo, 64 F.3d 1070, 1082-83 (7th Cir. 1995) (upholding sentencing enhancement for wire fraud by illegal computerized futures trading because defendant could have foreseen possible loss from his conduct and was therefore accountable for monetary loss under former § 2F1.1).
336. See Pornography, Technology, and Process: Problems and Solutions on Peer-to-Peer Networks: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 108th Cong. (2003) (statement of John Malcolm, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, DOJ) [hereinafter Malcolm Statement].
337. See supra note 7 (discussing victims' reluctance to report computer crimes).
338. See Liza Porteus, FBI's New Cyber-Division Quietly Ramps Up, NAT'L J. TECH. DAILY, Apr. 8, 2002, http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0402/040802td1.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
339. See id.
340. See FBI, Cyber Investigations, http://www.fbi.gov/ cyberinvest/cyberhome.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
341. See FBI, Innocent Images National Initiative, http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
342. See id.
343. See NAT'L WHITE COLLAR CRIME CTR. & FBI, THE INTERNET CRIME COMPLAINT CENTER 2006 INTERNET CRIME REPORT: JANUARY 1, 2006-DECEMBER 31, 2006 (2007), http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2006_IC3Report.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
344. See id. at 3 (describing a decrease from the previous year in the number of complaints being referred by IC3 and noting that the vast majority of these relate to online auction fraud).
345. See generally DOJ, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/index.html (providing cases, recent law, reports, and other documents related to computer crime) (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
346. See Prosecution of Intellectual Property Crimes and the 'STOP!' Initiative: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight of Government Management, the Fed. Workforce, and the District of Columbia of the S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Laura H. Parsky, Deputy Assistant Att'y Gen., Criminal Division, DOJ) (describing recent initiatives of CCIPS targeting online piracy, fraud and illicit peer-to-peer network file sharing) [hereinafter Parsky I.P. Crime Statement].
347. Press Release, DOJ, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Renews Commitment to Justice Department's Intellectual Property Task Force (Mar. 9, 2005), http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/March/05_ag_111.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
348. See id.
349. See id.
350. See id.; see also Parsky I.P. Crime Statement, supra note 341 (describing the CHD? program in detail).
351. See Parsky I.P. Crime Statement, supra note 341.
352. See generally DOJ, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/index.html (providing cases, recent law, testimony, reports, and other documents related to child pornography) (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
353. See Sexual Crimes Against Children: Hearing on H.R. 2388 and H.R. 2318 Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Laura H. Parsky, Deputy Assistant Att'y Gen., Criminal Division, DOJ) [hereinafter Parsky Sex Crimes Statement].
354. See id. (stating that in 1997, 352 defendants were charged with child pornography crimes and 299 convicted and in 2004, 1,486 cases were filed and 1,066 convicted); Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney Gen., DOJ, Remarks at the International Conference on Combating Child Pornography on the Internet (Sept. 29, 1999) (stating that federal prosecutions of Internet child pornographers have increased 10% every year since 1995, and approximately 400 Internet child pornographers are prosecuted each year), http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ cybercrime/dagceos.html (last visited Jan. 22, 2008). But see supra Part III.B.1. (describing the constitutional challenges to federal child pornography statutes).
355. See, e.g., Press Release, DOJ, Justice Department Announces Eight Charged in Internet Piracy Crackdown (July 28, 2005) ("Operations. . .resulted in a total of more than 200 search warrants executed in 15 countries; [one operation] alone has yielded a total of 30 U.S. felony convictions and another 10 convictions overseas."); Press Release, U.S. Customs Serv., 45 Children Rescued, 20 Arrests in U.S. Customs, Danish Police Investigation of Global Child-Molesting, Pornography Ring (Aug. 9, 2002); Press Release, U.S. Customs Serv., U.S. Customs, 10 Foreign Countries, Serve Multiple Search Warrants on Internet Child Pornography Ring (Mar. 20, 2002).
356. See Parsky I.P. Crime Statement, supra note 341 (describing the growth of online piracy); Parsky Sex Crimes Statement, supra note 348 (describing the burgeoning problem of child pornography and the ease, speed, and anonymity of distribution over the Internet); Malcolm Statement, supra note 331 (describing the problem of anonymous use and the various modes of purveyance of child pornography over the Internet, including newsgroups, Internet relay chat, and the threat posed by peer-to-peer software).
357. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN § 13-2316 (2000).
358. FLA. STAT. §§ 815.01-815.07 (1996 & Supp. 1999).
359. ALA. CODE §§ 13A-8-100 to 13A-8-103 (1994); ALASKA STAT. §§ 11.46.200(a)(3), 11.46.484(a)(5), 11.46.740, 11.46.985, 11.46.990 (2000); ARK. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-2301(E), 13-2316 (2000); ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 5-41-101 to 5-41-108 (1997); CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 502, 1203.047 (West 1998 & Supp. 2004); COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 18-5.5-101 to 5-102 (2000); CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53a-250 to -261 (1999 & Supp. 2001); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §§ 931-939 (1995 & Supp. 2000); FLA. STAT. §§ 815.01-.07 (2000); GA. CODE ANN. §§ 16-9-90 to -94 (1998); HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 708-890 to -893 (1999); IDAHO CODE ANN. §§ 18-2201 to -2202, 26-1220 (1997); 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/16D-1 to -7 (1998 & Supp. 1999); IND. CODE §§ 35-41-2-3, 35-43-1-4 (1998); IOWA CODE ANN. §§ 716A.1-.16 (West 1993 & Supp. 2000); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 21-3755 (1995 & Supp. 1999); KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 434.840-.860 (1999); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 14:73.1-.5 (1997 & Supp. 2001); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 17-A, §§ 431-433 (West Supp. 2000); MD. CODE, CRIM. LAW § 7-302 (West 2004); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 266, §§ 30, 33A, 120F (1992 & Supp. 2000); MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 752.791-.797 (1991 & Supp. 2000); MINN. STAT. §§ 609.87-.894 (1998); MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 97-45-1 to -13 (2000); MO. REV. STAT. § 569.095 (1994) (amended by Stolen Property - Services - Penalty Provisions, 2002 Mo. Legis. Serv. 194 (West)); MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 45-6-310, -311 (1999); NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 28-1343 to -1348 (1995); NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 205.473-.491 (2007); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 638:16-:19 (1996 & Supp. 2005); N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:38A-1 to -6 (West 2000), 2C:20-23 to -34 (West 1995 & Supp. 2000); N.M. STAT. §§ 30-45-1 to -7 (2006); N.Y. PENAL LAW §§ 156.00-.50 (McKinney 2006); N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 14-453 to -457 (2005); N.D. CENT. CODE § 12.1-06.1-08 (1997 & Supp. 2003); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2913.04 (West 2007); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 1951-1958 (West Supp. 2001); OR. REV. STAT. §§ 164.125, 164.377 (1999); 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 7601, 7603, 7611, 7615, 7616 (West Supp. 2003); R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 11-52-1 to -8 (2000); S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 16-16-10 to -40 (Law. Co-op. 1985 & Supp. 2000) (amended by Computer Abuse Act of 2002, 2002 S.C. Acts 169); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 43-43B-1 to -8 (1997); TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 39-14-601 to -603 (1997 & Supp. 2000); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 33.01-.04 (Vernon 1994 & Supp. 2001); UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 76-6-701 to -705 (1999 & Supp. 2000); VT. STAT. ANN., tit. 13, §§ 4101-4107 (Supp. 1999); VA. CODE ANN. §§ 18.2-152.1 to .15 (1996 & Supp. 2000); WASH. REV. CODE §§ 9A.52.110-.130 (1998); W. VA. CODE. §§ 61-3C-1 to -21 (2000); WIS. STAT. § 943.70 (1998); WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 6-3-501 to -505 (1999 and Supp. 2000).
360. S. 240, 96th Cong. § 1 (1979); S. 1766, 95th Cong. § 1 (1977); see also Federal Computer Systems Protection Act: Hearings on S. 1766 Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 170-71 (1978) (setting forth proposed 1977 legislation).
361. See Robin K. Kutz, Note, Computer Crime in Virginia: A Critical Examination of the Criminal Offenses in the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, 27 WM. & MARY L. REV. 783, 789-90 (1986). Two states, Ohio and Massachusetts, took a third approach, choosing only to "redefine certain terms in their criminal codes to ensure that their statutes covered computers and computer-related intangible property." Id. at 790.
362. See Jerome Y. Roache, Computer Crime Deterrence, 13 AM. J. CRIM. L. 391, 392 (1986) (explaining how prosecution is aided by eliminating the need for prosecutors, attorneys, and judges to rationalize the application of a traditional criminal law in a technical, computer-related context).
363. See Marc. D. Goodman, Why the Police Don't Care About Computer Crime, 10 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 465, 468-69 (1997).
364. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 502.01 (West 1998 & Supp. 2004); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:64-1 (West 1995 & Supp. 2000); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 30-45-7 (1997). Illinois distributes half the forfeited proceeds to the local government agency that investigated the computer fraud for training and enforcement purposes, and half to the county in which the prosecution was brought, where it is placed in a special fund and appropriated to the State's Attorney for use in training and enforcement. 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/16D-6 (1998 & Supp. 1999).
365. See ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.270 (2000); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 750.411(h)(e)(vi) (West Supp. 2000); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 1173 (West Supp. 2001); WIS. STAT. § 947.0125 (2001); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 6-2-506 (1999).
366. ALA. CODE § 13A-11-8(b)(1)(a) (1994 & Supp. 2000); CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53a-183 (2001); IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-6710(3) (1997); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 644:4(II) (1996 & Supp. 2000); N.Y. PENAL LAW § 240.30 (McKinney 1989 & Supp. 2001).
367. E.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 750.145(d) (West Supp. 2004).
368. See Vives v. City of New York, 405 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAL. PENAL CODE § 502.01 (West 1998 & Supp. 2004)); State v. Brobst, 857 A.2d 1253 (N.H. 2004) (N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 644:4(1) (1996 & Supp. 2000) was overbroad); ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) (N.M. STAT. § 30-37-3.2(A) (1978) (banning communication of indecent material to minors)); ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228, 1231 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (GA. CODE ANN. § 16-9-93.1 (1996) (banning pseudonyms in electronic communication).
369. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming all have enacted some permutation of anti-spam legislation. See DAVID E. SORKIN, SPAM LAWS (Apr. 20, 2005), http://www.spamlaws.com/state/summary.shtml (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
370. See NEB. REV. STAT. § 28-1343(5) (1995).
371. See ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-41-106 (1997); CONN. GEN. STAT. § 52-570b (Supp. 1999); DEL CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 939 (1995 & Supp. 2000); GA. CODE ANN. § 16-9-93 (1998); 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/16D-3(4)(C) (1998 & Supp. 1999); MO. REV. STAT. § 537.525 (1994); N.J. REV. STAT. §§ 2A:38A-1 to 2A:38A-6 (2000); OKLA. STAT. ANN tit. 21, § 1955 (West Supp. 2001); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-52-6 (2000); W. VA. CODE § 61-3C-16 (2000).
372. See Benjamin Edelman, State Spyware Legislation, http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/legislation/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
373. See Benjamin Edelman, "Spyware" - Research, Testing, Legislation and Suits, http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/#suits (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
374. Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.
375. See, e.g., CAL. CIV. CODE § 1798.29(a) (West 2007); § 1798.82; ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-110-101 to 108 (2007).
376. See, e.g., CAL. CIV. CODE § 1798.29(a) (West 2007); § 1798.82; ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-110-101 to 108 (2007).
377. See Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285 (1911) (for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state conduct, there must be (i) an act occurring outside the state; (ii) which is intended to produce detrimental effects within the state; and (iii) is the cause of detrimental effects within the state).
378. See Terrence Berg, State Criminal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Is There a Sheriff on the Electronic Frontier?, 79 MICH. B. J. 659, 660 (2000) (explaining that although a resident of one state is affected by a computer crime, the website may have "a real-world address" in another state, and may be hosted by an ISP in yet another state).
379. See id. at 659 (explaining that in criminal cases, "the 'minimum contacts' analysis does not apply when determining criminal jurisdiction . . . , [instead] the analysis focuses on the intent of the defendant and the effects within the forum state").
380. See id. at 661 ("States that have broadened the . . . approach by also allowing jurisdiction where a result of the offense, whether an element or not occurs in the forum state, are: Arizona, Kansas, New York, and Missouri.").
381. See WIS. STAT. ANN. § 939.03(1)(c) (West 1996 & Supp 2003) (extending jurisdiction where the out-of-state person "does an act with intent that it cause in this state a consequence set forth in a section defining a crime").
382. See Berg, supra note 373, at 661 (citing CAL. PENAL CODE § 778 (Deering 1998); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 23A-16-2 (1998)).
383. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DOJ, NATIONAL SURVEY OF PROSECUTORS: PROSECUTORS IN STATE COURTS, 5 (2006), available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/psc05.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
384. Id.
385. Id.
386. Id.
387. See generally Kate Reder, Ashcroft v. ACLU: Should Congress Try, Try, and Try Again, or Does the International Problem of Regulating Internet Pornography Require an International Solution? 6 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 139 (2004); Computer Crime & Intellectual Prop. Section, DOJ, International Aspects of Computer Crime (providing cases, laws, testimony, reports, and other documents related to international efforts to combat cybercrime), http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/intl.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2007).
388. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 851 (1997) (defining cyberspace as a "unique medium . . . located in no particular geographical location but
389. See Walter Gary Sharp, Sr., Note, Redefining National Security in Today's World of Information Technology and Emergent Threats, 9 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 383, 384 (1999);
390. see also Steve Shackelford, Note, Computer-Related Crime: An International Problem in Need of an International Solution, 27 TEX. INT'L L.J. 479, 494 (1992).
391. See Larry Lange, Trust a Hacker Under 30? You'd Better, ELEC. ENG'G TIMES, Aug. 19, 1996 (estimating that $800 million was lost by banks and other corporations because of attacks on their computer systems). See generally the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FRAUD, MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD, and SECURITIES FRAUD articles in this issue.
392. See, e.g., Katyal, supra note 4, at 1048-49 (describing how Ramsi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, used encryption to store details of scheme on his laptop computer).
393. Chris Reed, The Admissibility and Authentication of Computer Evidence - A Confusion of Issues, 5th BILETA Conference (2005); see also JOHN ANDREWS & MICHAEL HIRST, ANDREWS & HIRST ON CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 380-85 (3d ed. 1997) (describing problems with current English evidentiary regime, and agreeing with proposed changes); Clifford Miller, Electronic Evidence - Can You Prove the Transaction Took Place?, 9 No. 5 COMPUTER L. 21 (1992) (analyzing problems of getting evidence of computer crimes admitted under United Kingdom rules of evidence); THE LAW COMMISSION, CONSULTATION PAPER NO. 138, CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS 207 (1995).
394. See Amy Knoll, Any Which Way But Loose: Nations Regulate the Internet, 4 TUL. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 275 (1996) (describing and evaluating legislation in Belarus, China, Croatia, the European Union, France, Germany, Russia, Singapore, and the United States).
395. The German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) proscribes distributing any fascist or other related literature. § 86 Nr. 1.4 StGB; § 131 Nr. 1 StGB; French Penal Code R. 645-1 (2001).
396. See Ahmad Mardini, Gulf-Culture: Officials Worry About Smut on Internet, INTER PRESS SERV (1996).
397. See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (dismissing suit where 3 judges held that there was no jurisdiction and three that the suit not ripe); see also Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002) (showing the legal tensions between nations as cultural and constitutional norms come into conflict);
398. Silvia Ascarelli & Kimberley A. Strassel, Two German Cases Show How Europe Still Is Struggling to Regulate Internet, WALL ST. J., Apr. 21, 1997, at B9;
399. Silvia Ascarelli, Two On-Line Services Companies Investigated in Racial Hatred Case, WALL ST. J., Jan. 26, 1996, at B2.
400. See Silvia Ascarelli, Technology & Takeovers: Politician Is Acquitted in Internet Case in Berlin, WALL ST. J. EUR., July 1, 1997, at 11.
401. Michael Laris, Beijing Launches a New Offensive to Squelch Dissent on Internet, WASH. POST, Dec. 31, 1997, at A16 (describing regulations).
402. See Patrick Symmes, Che is Dead, WIRED MAGAZINE, Feb. 1998, at 140, 145 (describing Internet culture in Cuba).
403. See BUS. SOFTWARE ALLIANCE & INT'L DATA CORP., FOURTH ANNUAL BSA AND IDC GLOBAL SOFTWARE PIRACY STUDY (2007), http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/upload/2007-Global-Piracy- Study-EN.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
404. Id.
405. Laura H. Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen., DOJ, Remarks at International Conference on Intellectual Property Protection (Oct. 14, 2004) (describing international cooperation in combating intellectual property crime), http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/parskySpeech.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
406. See Ulrich Sieber, Computer Crimes and Other Crimes Against Information Technology: Commentary and Preparatory Questions for the Colloquium of the AIDP in Wuerzburg, 64 REV. INT'L DE DROIT PENAL 67, 69-70 (1993) (discussing adoption of computer crime legislation).
407. See, e.g., Computer Misuse Act, 1990, c. 18 (U.K.).
408. See Cybercrimes - Coordinated Effort to Attack Cybercrimes, 3 No. 1 CYBERSPACE L. 32, 32 (1998) (discussing cooperative effort to coordinate Internet legislation between Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States);
409. Cole Durham, The Emerging Structures of Criminal Information Law: Tracing the Contours of a New Paradigm: General Report for the AIDP Colloquium, 64 REV. INT'L DE DROIT PENAL 79, 97-109 (1993) (discussing patterns of convergence in computer crime legislation with regard to unauthorized access, unauthorized interception, unauthorized use of computer, alteration of data or programs, computer sabotage, computer espionage, unauthorized use or reproduction of computer programs, unauthorized reproduction of topography, computer forgery, and computer fraud).
410. Council of Europe, Chart of Signatures and Ratifications (39 countries have signed the treaty including four parties outside of the Council of Europe), http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=185&CM=1&DF= 11/30/2007&CL=ENG (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
411. Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, opened for signature Nov. 23, 2001, C.E.T.S. No. 185, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ Word/185.doc (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
412. See DOJ, COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (NOV. 10, 2003), http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ cybercrime/COEFAQs.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
413. Fighting Cybercrime: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. 1 (2001) (statement of Michael Chertoff, Assistant Att'y Gen. Criminal Division), http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/ 72616.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).
414. Id.
415. See Durham, supra note 392, at 97 n.51 (citing efforts by Council of Europe, OECD, and United Nations).
416. See generally Business Software Alliance, http://www.bsa.org (last visited Jan. 22, 2008).