Are You A Teenager Who Reads News Online? According to the Justice Department, You May Be a CriminalDave Maass and Trevor Timm Yet, disturbingly, the Departments of Justice (DOJ) of both the Bush and Obama administrations have embraced an expansive interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) that would literally make it a crime for many kids to read the news online. And its the main reasonwhy the law must be reformed. As weve explained previously, in multiple cases the DOJ has taken the position that a violation of a websites Terms of Service or an employers Terms of Use policy can be treated as a criminal act. Take, for example, the Hearst Corporations family of publications. If you read the terms of use for the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, or Popular Mechanics websites, youll find this language, screamed in all-caps: YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE COVERED SITES OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD. If you are between the ages of 13 and 18, you may browse the NPR Services or register for email newsletters or other features of the NPR Services (excluding the NPR Community) with the consent of your parent(s) or guardian(s), so long as you do not submit any User Materials. Some sites must have recognized the problem and crafted their policies to only forbid users under the age of 13. These include the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Arizona Republic. NBCNews.com uses this wording: By using or attempting to use the Site or Services, you certify that you are at least 13 years of age or other required greater age for certain features and meet any other eligibility and residency requirements of the Site. This means that inquisitive 12-year-olds who visit NBCNews.com to learn about current events would be, by default, misrepresenting their ages. Thats criminal by DOJ standards and would be explicitly illegal under the House Judiciary Committees proposal. Wed like to say that were being facetious, but, unfortunately, the Justice Department has already demonstrated its willingness to pursue CFAA to absurd extremes. Luckily, the Ninth Circuit rejected the governments arguments, concluding that, under such an ruling, millions of unsuspecting citizens would suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. As Judge Alex Kozinski so aptly wrote: Under the governments proposed interpretation of the CFAAdescribing yourself as tall, dark and handsome, when youre actually short and homely, will earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit. And its no excuse to say that the vast majority of these cases will never be prosecuted. As the Ninth Circuit explained, Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Instead of pursuing only suspects of actual crimes, it opens the door for prosecutors to go after people because the government doesnt like them. Unfortunately, theres no sign the Justice Department has given up on this interpretation outside the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, which is why the Professor Tim Wu in the New Yorkerrecently called the CFAA the most outrageous criminal law youve never heard of. The potential criminalization of terms of service is a prime reason that Congress needs to overhaul CFAA and its certainly why the House Judiciary Committee should abandon the seemingly DOJ-drafted bill it floated recently and instead sit down with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Darrell Issa, and others to negotiate real reform. Are you a minor with a thirst for information? You, and your parents who vote, should together tell Congress to fix CFAA. For the latest in electronic privacy news, please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 