Anonymous defendants to be unmasked in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case
Kimberlite Corp. v. Does 1-20, No. 08-2147, 2008 WL 2264485 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2008)
Plaintiff Kimberlite sued a number of anonymous John Doe defendants after it learned that its network and email system had been unlawfully accessed. A few days after filing suit for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and trespass to chattels under state law, Kimberlite served a subpoena on AT&T, the owner of the IP address from which the unauthorized access originated, seeking to discover who was responsible.
One of the John Doe defendants, pro se, wrote a letter to the court which the court treated as a motion to quash the subpoena. The court denied the motion.
Doe argued that Kimberlite had failed to state a claim under the CFAA. The court rejected that argument, observing that Kimberlite had adequately alleged and had provided preliminary evidence of a CFAA violation. (Doe had not challenged the sufficiency of the trespass to chattels claim.) Kimberlite’s computers were “protected” computers under the CFAA because they were used in interstate and foreign commerce. They were password protected and accessed without authorization by someone from the subject IP address. Kimberlite succeeded in alleging the threshold amount of CFAA damages ($5,000) through an employee declaration describing over 100 hours of investigation and repair following the intrusions.
Doe also argued that Kimberlite had not demonstrated a need to obtain the information that outweighed Doe’s privacy rights under the Cable Communication Policy Act (CCPA). That act prohibits cable operators from disclosing subscriber information unless certain criteria are met.
The court rejected the CCPA argument first by expressing serious doubt that AT&T, as an Internet service provider was a “cable operator” and thus subject to the CCPA. Even if the CCPA did apply, the court found Kimberlite had demonstrated a compelling need for the information sought. It had adequately set forth a cause of action, so discovery of the anonymous parties was proper.
We are pleased to post the first official podcast from the VeraSage Institute. Please note that it takes a few minutes to download.
In this podcast, which runs a little over 12 minutes, Ron Baker and Ed Kless conduct a dialogue about the basics of Pricing on Purpose (aka Value Pricing). It is our hope that this will be the first of many, but we need your help. Please give this a listen and provide us with any feedback via either comments to this post or email.
Once we have three podcasts released, we plan to submit them to iTunes so that you will be able to manage them more easily.
Some are criticizing Sun for standing by while Linux took unfair hits from SCO. But isn't this what the law and corporate citizenship required of the company?
As a think tank that believes in the importance of words, we could not let the passing of George Carlin go unmentioned. When it comes to words he was the master.
I love words. I thank you for hearing my words.
I want to tell you something about words that I think is important.
They’re my work, they’re my play, they’re my passion.
Words are all we have, really. We have thoughts but thoughts are fluid.
then we assign a word to a thought and we’re stuck with that word for that thought, so be careful with words.
I like to think that the same words that hurt can heal, it is a matter of how you pick them.
There are some people that are not into all the words.
There are some that would have you not use certain words.
There are 400,000 words in the English language and there are seven of them you can’t say on television.
What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad.
They’d have to be outrageous to be seperated from a group that large.
All of you over here, you seven, bad Words. That’s what they told us they were, remember?
“That’s a bad word!” No bad words, bad thoughts, bad intentions, and words.
You know the seven, don’t you, that you can’t say on television?
For those of you ok with hearing them, can click here to watch and listen to his 1978 follow-up to the original.
How does the law apply in virtual worlds? Our law deals with the physical world and in one sense, it’s not expected to venture into the virtual realm. As of now, crimes require physical evidence based on reality. This leaves owners of virtual reality programs and gaming sites the power and responsibility of creating their own rules, terms of service and game administrator mediation methods. In another sense, the physical law and the virtual world have and will continue to meet in court.
Developers of these virtual worlds and gaming sites incur legal obligations. Virtual property rights do exist under the law in the form of intellectual property, misuse of trademarks and the law protects the legal rights of participants. Virtual property rights’ value often translates into the taxation of the value of such rights by the Internal Revenue Service.
Virtual property rights also attract legal disputes; where there’s considerable value, a legal dispute eventually follows. In 2003 a court in China recognized value built in a virtual world by ruling that the developer must compensate a player (in real cash) for the value of virtual property stolen by a hacker. As more and more legal disputes make their way to court, questions arise. Are owners and developers responsible for monitoring and preventing intellectual property thefts? Under what circumstances can an owner close down a virtual reality area losing money after customers spend time and money developing their virtual properties?
Understanding where reality begins and gaming and virtual worlds meet the law introduces owners to needless frustration. A knowledgeable attorney who understands the virtual world created by technology and the world of reality eases the pain and frustrations by efficiently guiding their clients through the maze. J.C. Neu and Associates want to be part of your team, proactively preventing your exposure to legal suits before they begin.
| 
Articles