In response to a draft of the House Judicial Committee’s bill on cybersecurity, which would expand the Computer Fraud and Abuses Act (CFAA), the online hacktivist group Anonymous encouraged the public to rally against the legislation on social media sites on Wednesday evening.
Referred to as a “Twitter storm,” Anonymous scheduled the online protest for 5 p.m. EST, and asked users to demonstrate their opposition to the CFAA online, and told followers the goal was to “influence the decision makers on the House Judicial Committee [that] strengthening the provision of the CFAA is not what we the people want.”
The CFAA has become a controversial piece of legislation in recent months, after cases related to its rules and limitations, like when freedom of information advocate Aaron Swartz committed suicide after being federally prosecuted for downloading academic journals and articles from a subscription database, JSTOR, and publishing them for free online.
Concerning for transparency advocates is that this bill would expand the powers of the CFAA and not limit them like so many advocates have proposed. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who has proposed laws recently that would stop the government from bringing disproportionate charges like in the Swartz case, shared recently he is not in favor of the cybersecurity bill draft he has seen.
He said the proposed bill was “so bad that it almost feels like the Judiciary Committee is doing it on purpose as a dig at online activists who have fought back against things like SOPA, CISPA and the CFAA.”
One of the big changes in the CFAA law that is most concerning to groups like Anonymous is that a person “conspiring” to commit something that is considered a crime under the CFAA would be given the same punishment as someone who actually did it. This means that anyone who talks about doing something that violates the CFAA could be charged and punished as if they had actually committed the offense.
But critics of the CFAA say that this change to make the law even more powerful is especially concerning given that teenagers can already be arrested for reading stories on online news organizations.
Arrested for reading the news?
Since most of the American public is unaware of the CFAA rules and punishments, and would likely oppose this legislation if they knew more, groups like Anonymous have taken it upon themselves to spotlight the absurdities embedded in the law, hoping that this will lead to public outrage and amendments to the law.
One of those absurd laws is in regard to violating a website’s terms of use.
While many people use the Internet in their daily lives for a variety of reasons, many don’t read the terms of service, which is why it was news to most Americans that many news organizations require a reader to be 18 years old. So under the CFAA laws, a 17-year-old reading the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle or Popular Mechanics, could be arrested since all of these organizations include the following in their terms of service:
“You may not access or use the covered sites or accept the agreement if you are not at least 18 years old.”
Luckily for news junkie teens, some organizations like National Public Radio (NPR) allow readers under the age of 18 to access its site if they have a permission slip.
“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.”
Other organizations such as the New York Times, Boston Globe and NBCNews.com, are aware of teens’ heavy use of the Internet and restrictive CFAA policies, and have altered their policy to only forbid users under the age of 13 from reading their content.
But still, the inclusion of these words and age minimums in the terms of use means that 12-year-olds who visit NBCNews.com to learn about current events would be, by default, misrepresenting their ages, and could be prosecuted.
Justice Department vs. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
While the Justice Department has continued to hold the American public accountable to CFAA standards, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the government’s arguments in many cases, citing that under such a ruling, millions of unsuspecting citizens would find themselves in violation of the law.
In his decision, Judge Alex Kozinski wrote: “Under the government’s proposed interpretation of the CFAA … describing yourself as ‘tall, dark and handsome,’ when you’re actually short and homely, will earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit.”
Another concern for the Ninth Circuit court was that since there was no way to prosecute every person who violated the law, the court said it raised concerns that prosecutors would only go after people the government doesn’t like.
It’s information like this — who would be affected by an expansion of the CFAA and to what extent — is what prompted Anonymous to send out this letter, instructing followers how to participate in its Twitter storm event.
The group created two hashtags, #CFAA and #ReformCFAA, to be used by participants and shared sample tweets that could be used, and shared the Twitter usernames of members of the House Judicial Committee.