# data[].attributes.headline
1st Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To Harm Other People

# data[].attributes.subject
1st Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To Harm Other People

# data[].attributes.headline
2nd Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Interfere With Other People’s Computer Work

# data[].attributes.subject
2nd Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Interfere With Other People’s Computer Work

# data[].attributes.headline
3rd Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Snoop Around In Other People’s Computer Files

# data[].attributes.subject
3rd Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Snoop Around In Other People’s Computer Files

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cybersecurity Expert Answers Hacking History Questions | Tech Support | WIRED

# data[].attributes.headline
4th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To Steal

# data[].attributes.subject
4th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To Steal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), codified at Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030, is an important law for prosecutors to address cyber-based crimes. As technology and criminal behavior continue to evolve, however, it also remains important that the CFAA be applied consistently by attorneys for the government and that the public better understand how the Department applies the law.

To accomplish these goals, the Department has developed the following policy to guide attorneys for the government in the appropriate considerations for prosecutors contemplating charges under the CFAA.

A. Consultation Requirements

Cases under the CFAA are often complex, and analysis of whether a particular investigation or prosecution is consistent with the charging policy described below often requires a nuanced understanding of technology, the sensitivity of information involved, tools for lawful evidence gathering, national and international coordination issues, and victim concerns, among other factors. JM § 9-50.000 sets forth general requirements for cyber prosecutions, including coordination with and notification of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section ("CCIPS") of the Criminal Division in certain cases.

As the best practice, the attorney for the government should consult with a Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Coordinator ("CHIP") within the District in which the case would be brought at all important stages of an investigation, including the issuance of legal process to obtain electronic evidence. However, because electronic evidence is often subject to deletion after very short retention periods, the need to preserve or obtain evidence critical to the investigation may require taking preliminary investigative steps before undertaking the consultation above. In such cases, the consultations should take place as soon as possible.

With respect to charging decisions, the attorney for the government shall consult with CCIPS to identify potential factual, legal, or policy issues, assist with deconfliction with similar cases in other Districts (to the extent the attorneys have not already completed such deconfliction pursuant to other Department policies and procedures), and review how the case relates to national priorities. Attorneys for the government are encouraged to have a District CHIP participate in this consultation. The consultation should be substantive in nature. It is meant to both assist the prosecutor and promote consistency in the Department in a quickly evolving area of practice. The depth of the consultation and degree of information required to accomplish these goals will vary according to the facts, complexity, and sensitivity of a particular investigation or matter. These types of consultations are already a hallmark of the CHIP program, and the strong working relationships are a key reason for the program's collaborative successes.

Consultation for Cases Involving National Security Issues

For CFAA cases involving international terrorism or domestic terrorism, or affecting, involving, or relating to the national security, JM §§ 9-2.136, 9-2.137, and 9-90.020 set forth additional NSD notification, consultation, and approval requirements, including those at the opening and investigative stages. In such cases, the attorney for the government can, if he or she chooses, satisfy the CCIPS and NSD charging consultation requirements with one contact. NSD or CCIPS will then be responsible for facilitating any additional charging consultations with the other component. If there is any question about whether a matter involves international terrorism, domestic terrorism, or otherwise affects, involves, or relates to the national security, the attorney for the government should consult with the National Security Cyber Specialist ("NSCS") within his or her District for further guidance.

Notification to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General

When an office has consulted with CCIPS and intends to charge a CFAA case in a manner contrary to a written recommendation invoking this paragraph, that office shall inform the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before charging. This policy does not affect the existing relevant procedures for appealing an NSD decision not to approve a CFAA case involving international terrorism or domestic terrorism, or that affects, involves, or relates to the national security. In no instance will an office charge a defendant with "exceeding authorized access" or "exceeds authorized access" contrary to a recommendation from CCIPS without approval from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

B. Charging Policy for CFAA cases.

Section 1030 describes a number of offenses that occur when a defendant accesses a protected computer "without authorization." See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5)(B)-(C). The Department will not charge defendants for accessing "without authorization" under these paragraphs unless when, at the time of the defendant's conduct, (1) the defendant was not authorized to access the protected computer under any circumstances by any person or entity with the authority to grant such authorization; (2) the defendant knew of the facts that made the defendant's access without authorization; and (3) prosecution would serve the Department's goals for CFAA enforcement, as described below in B.3.

Access "exceeding authorized access."

Three paragraphs of section 1030 describe offenses involving conduct that "exceeds authorized access," sometimes also phrased "exceeding authorized access." See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4). The Department will not charge defendants with "exceeding authorized access" or "exceeds authorized access" under these paragraphs unless, at the time of the defendant's conduct, (1) a protected computer is divided into areas, such as files, folders, user accounts, or databases; (2) that division is established in a computational sense, that is, through computer code or configuration, rather than through contracts, terms of service agreements, or employee policies; (3) a defendant is authorized to access some areas, but unconditionally prohibited from accessing other areas of the computer; (4) the defendant accessed an area of the computer to which his authorized access did not extend; (5) the defendant knew of the facts that made his access unauthorized; and (6) prosecution would serve the Department's goals for CFAA enforcement, as described below in B.3.

Whether prosecution would serve the Department's goals for CFAA enforcement.

The Department's goals for CFAA enforcement are to promote privacy and cybersecurity by upholding the legal right of individuals, network owners, operators, and other persons to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information stored in their information systems.

Thus, in addition to the considerations set forth in JM § 9-27.230, which are incorporated herein by reference, an attorney for the Department of Justice should consider the following additional factors in determining whether a CFAA prosecution should be pursued because a substantial federal interest would be served by prosecution in a case in which the admissible evidence is expected to be sufficient to sustain a conviction:

1. The sensitivity of the affected computer system or the information transmitted by or stored on it and the likelihood and extent of harm associated with damage or unauthorized access to the computer system or related disclosure and use of information;

2. The degree to which damage or access to the computer system or the information transmitted by or stored on it raises concerns pertaining to national security, critical infrastructure, public health and safety, market integrity, international relations, or other considerations having a broad or significant impact on national or economic interests;

3. The extent to which the activity was in furtherance of a larger criminal endeavor or posed a risk of bodily harm or a threat to national security;

4. The impact of the crime and prosecution on the victim or other third parties;

5. The deterrent value of an investigation or prosecution, including whether the need for deterrence is increased because the activity involves a new or expanding area of criminal activity, a recidivist defendant, use of a novel or sophisticated technique, or abuse of a position of trust or otherwise sensitive level of access, or because the conduct is particularly egregious or malicious;

6. The nature of the impact that the criminal conduct has on a particular District or community;

7. Whether any other jurisdiction is likely to prosecute the criminal conduct effectively, if the matter is declined for federal prosecution; and

8. The attorney for the government should decline prosecution if available evidence shows the defendant's conduct consisted of, and the defendant intended, good-faith security research. For purposes of this policy, the attorney for the government should apply the definition of "good-faith security research" recommended by the Register of Copyrights in Section 1201 Rulemaking: Eighth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention, at 258 (Oct. 2021). That is: "good faith security research" means accessing a computer solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a manner designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices, machines, or online services to which the accessed computer belongs, or those who use such devices, machines, or online services. Security research not conducted in good faith-for example, for the purpose of discovering security holes in devices, machines, or services in order to extort the owners of such devices, machines, or services-might be called "research," but is not in good faith. CCIPS can consult with prosecutors about specific applications of this factor.

C. Comment.

The Department will not bring "exceeds authorized access" cases based on the theory that a defendant's authorization to access a particular file, database, folder, or user account was conditioned by a contract, agreement, or policy, with the narrow exception of contracts, agreements, or policies that entirely prohibit defendants from accessing particular files, databases, folders, or user accounts on a computer in all circumstances. A CFAA prosecution may not be brought on the theory that a defendant exceeds authorized access solely by violating an access restriction contained in a contractual agreement or term of service with an Internet service provider or web service available to the general public-including public websites (such as social-media services) that allow for free or paid registration without human intervention. Also, a CFAA prosecution may not be brought on the theory that an employee has used a computer generally designated for his or her exclusive use in a way the employer's policy prohibits-for example, by checking sports scores or paying bills at work. However, an "exceeds authorized access" CFAA prosecution may be brought, for example, against a defendant who accesses a multi-user computer or web service, and is authorized to access only his own account on that computer or web service, but instead accesses someone else's account.

The Department also will not bring "exceeds authorized access" cases based on the theory that authorization to access a computer, or a particular area on a computer, was automatically withdrawn under the terms of a contract or other written document once the user did something, or some other particular condition was met. Thus, embellishing an online dating profile contrary to the terms of service of the dating website; creating fictional accounts on hiring, housing, or rental websites; or using a pseudonym on a social networking site that prohibits them, might all violate a user's contract with the owner of the protected computer, but the Department will not take the position that a mere contractual violation caused the user's previous authorization to be automatically withdrawn and that the user was from that point onward acting in violation of the CFAA. However, when authorizers later expressly revoke authorization-for example, through unambiguous written cease and desist communications that defendants receive and understand-the Department will consider defendants from that point onward not to be authorized.

In either a "without authorization" case or an "exceeds authorized access" case, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant knowingly accessed a computer or area of a computer to which he was not allowed access in order to obtain or alter information stored there, and not merely that the defendant subsequently misused information or services that he was authorized to obtain from the computer at the time he obtained it. As part of proving that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant was aware of the facts that made the defendant's access unauthorized at the time of the defendant's conduct. Such an awareness could potentially be proven through various means, including the presence of technology intended (however unsuccessfully) to limit unauthorized access; written or oral communications sent to the defendant that unambiguously informed him that he is not authorized to access a protected computer or particular areas of it; or the defendant's own statements or behaviors reflecting knowledge that his actions were unauthorized. Experience has demonstrated that in the large majority of "exceeds authorized access" cases brought by the Department, the operator of the computer system made some technological effort to protect the information at issue, thereby signaling the importance or sensitivity of that information. It is not necessary that this technological effort erect an impenetrable "technological barrier" or that the technology succeed in its intended purpose of preventing access. To the contrary, when the CFAA is violated, the technology all too often "permits" the defendant's illegal access, often despite network defenders' unsuccessful technological attempts to prevent it.

The charging policy and principles set forth in this Justice Manual section, and internal office procedures adopted pursuant to this section, are intended solely for the guidance of attorneys for the government. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party to litigation with the United States.

[updated May 2022]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), codified at Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030, is an important law for prosecutors to address cyber-based crimes. As technology and criminal behavior continue to evolve, however, it also remains important that the CFAA be applied consistently by attorneys for the government and that the public better understand how the Department applies the law.

# data[].attributes.headline
5th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To Bear False Witness

# data[].attributes.subject
5th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To Bear False Witness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoom 101 for Deposition Witnesses and Mediation Participants | Haber law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New to Zoom? We were all here once. Whether you’re a witness that is giving a virtual sworn testimony or you’re going through online mediation, here’s everything you need to know before diving in. Prior to Zoom Conference Ensure that your display name and/or icon are professional and reflect your full name and not …

# data[].attributes.headline
6th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Copy Or Use Proprietary Software For Which You have Not Paid

# data[].attributes.subject
6th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Copy Or Use Proprietary Software For Which You have Not Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You're Not A Genius For Pirating Software

# data[].attributes.headline
7th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use Other People’s Computer Resources Without Authorization Or Proper Compensation

# data[].attributes.subject
7th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Use Other People’s Computer Resources Without Authorization Or Proper Compensation

# data[].attributes.headline
8th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Appropriate Other People’s Intellectual Output

# data[].attributes.subject
8th Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Appropriate Other People’s Intellectual Output

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?

How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?

You can ask for it. If you know who the copyright owner is, you may contact the owner directly. If you are not certain about the ownership or have other related questions, you may wish to request that the Copyright Office conduct a search of its records or you may search yourself. See the next question for more details.

How can I find out who owns a copyright?

We can provide you with the information available in our records. A search of registrations, renewals, and recorded transfers of ownership made before 1978 requires a manual search of our files. Upon request, our staff will search our records, see Circular 4 Copyright Office fees. There is no fee if you conduct a search in person at the Copyright Office. Copyright registrations made and documents recorded from 1978 to date are available for searching online. For further information, see Circular 22, How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Circular 23, Copyright Card Catalog and the Online File. Check out the Virtual Card Catalog Proof of Concept as well.

How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?

The Copyright Office will not honor a request for a copy of someone else's protected work without written authorization from the copyright owner or from his or her designated agent, unless the work is involved in litigation. In the latter case, a litigation statement is required. A certificate of registration for any registered work can be obtained see Circular 4 Copyright Office fees, for this and other records and services. Circular 6, Access to and Copies of Copyright Records and Deposit, provides additional information.

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See, Fair Use Index, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works and Compilations.

Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?

A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?

If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?

No, we neither compile nor maintain such a list. A search of our records, however, may reveal whether a particular work is no longer under copyright protection. We will conduct a search of our records by the title of a work, an author's name, or a claimant's name. Upon request, our staff will search our records see Circular 4 Copyright Office Fees, for this and other records and services. You may also search the records in person without paying a fee.

I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to obtain permission?

With few exceptions, the Library of Congress does not own copyright in the materials in its collections and does not grant or deny permission to use the content mounted on its website. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item from the Library's collections and for securing any necessary permissions rests with persons desiring to use the item. To the greatest extent possible, the Library attempts to provide any known rights information about its collections. Such information can be found in the "Copyright and Other Restrictions" statements on each American Memory online collection homepage. If the image is not part of the American Memory collections, contact the Library custodial division to which the image is credited. Bibliographic records and finding aids available in each custodial division include information that may assist in assessing the copyright status. Search our catalogs through the Library's Online Catalog. To access information from the Library's reading rooms, go to Research Centers.

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Can a school show a movie without obtaining permission from the copyright owner?

If the movie is for entertainment purposes, you need to get a clearance or license for its performance.

It is not necessary to obtain permission if you show the movie in the course of "face-to-face teaching activities" in a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, if the copy of the movie being performed is a lawful copy. 17 U.S.C. § 110(1). This exemption encompasses instructional activities relating to a wide variety of subjects, but it does not include performances for recreation or entertainment purposes, even if there is cultural value or intellectual appeal.

Questions regarding this provision of the copyright law should be made to the legal counsel of the school or school system.

My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?

Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.

In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a "copy" of a photograph - the tangible embodiment of the "work" - is distinct from the "work" itself - the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the "work" is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer's will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a "fair use" under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at Fair Use Index. However, even if a person determines a use to be a "fair use" under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person's assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do I get permission to use somebody else's work? You can ask for it. If you know who the copyright owner is, you may contact the owner directly. If you are not certain about the ownership or have other related questions, you may wish to request that the Copyright Office conduct a search of its records or you may search yourself.

# data[].attributes.headline
9th Commandment- Thou Shalt Think About The Social Consequences Of The Program You Are Writing Or The System You Are Designing

# data[].attributes.subject
9th Commandment- Thou Shalt Think About The Social Consequences Of The Program You Are Writing Or The System You Are Designing

# data[].attributes.headline
10th Commandment- Thou Shalt Always Use A Computer In Ways That Insure Consideration And Respect For Your Fellow Humans

# data[].attributes.subject
10th Commandment- Thou Shalt Always Use A Computer In Ways That Insure Consideration And Respect For Your Fellow Humans

# data[].attributes.headline
Q1. Which of the Ten Ethical Computing Guidelines do you think students violate most often?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q1. Which of the Ten Ethical Computing Guidelines do you think students violate most often?

# data[].attributes.body
Students most often find themselves at odds with the 8th Commandment. With generative A.I. that funnels search engine information into one output, it is easier for students to "cover their tracks" by using software that creates and almost seamless original answer. The differences in quality are noticeable, especially for students with obvious disparities in writing when they use A.I. However, it is is still a very difficult thing to track today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q2. Why do you think these violations occur?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q2. Why do you think these violations occur?

# data[].attributes.body
I think these violations occur because students are not given a proper outlet trust their own objective completion skillset. What I mean by that is sources unbeknownst or too vast for teachers to compile unless on the statistician side seem to influence students to feel less reliant on their own creativity and thus they turn to corners that provide them with immediate answers without the work needed to churn it out naturally.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q3. What do you think could be done to reduce or eliminate such unethical behavior?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q3. What do you think could be done to reduce or eliminate such unethical behavior?

# data[].attributes.body
Enforcing school districts and administrations to prioritize A.I. job education will help teachers adapt to the shifting paradigm much faster. Information and knowledge is scarce in these early eras, but advancements will only continue as industry begins to rely more and more on artificial means of production and work flow. That's not to say that A.I. should be accepted as the "new normal"; merely suggesting the need to adapt and control the narrative before it usurps important factors that cannot be lost on a social level.