Cyberbully Pros And Cons

A case that highlighted the dark side cyberbullying was United States of America v. Lori Drew, where Drew in 2008 was indicted for Conspiracy, Accessing Protected Computer to Obtain Information and, Aiding and Abetting, and Causing an Act to be Done. Drew, 49, created a MySpace account in September 2006, and pretend to be a 16 year old boy named "Josh Evens" with the intention of harassing Megan Meier, a 13 year old girl, an ex-friend of Drew’s daughter Sarah. The initial communication was flirtatious and Meier became emotionally attached to "Josh". Drew used this emotional connection to cause pain to Meir by having “Josh” tell her the world would be a better place without her. Other profiles linked to "Josh" also sent mean spirted messages
Harsh and a fine line, yes, but didn't meet the legal criteria to charge her for cyber-stalking or cyber-harassment. What Drew did was horrible and as an adult she needs to bear responsibility for her actions. But is using CFAA as a means to hold her responsible the right course? The prosecutor found another avenue to punish Drew since there wasn't a way legally through cyber-bullying. The case that United States of America brought against Drew using CFAA was based upon wording within CFAA in specific "unauthorized" and how the breach of service relates to a federal crime. Drew defense stated "It is not time for the court to confront and either approve or reject the Government's novel and breathtaking broad theory of the CFAA. The theory of the prosecution is that breach of a contractual restriction on the Internet is a federal crime...Put simply, the question is this: Is it a federal crime to violate a website Terms of Service? The correct answer should be a resounding no." (Cooley,
With the court allowing broad interpretation of CFAA for non-hacking crimes, invites the government to overextend their reach. For example the use of CFAA and its broad language has been used against disloyal employees. Ex-employees who took information from their former employer, and as act of vengeance seek to criminal charges through the CFAA. As with the Drew case, the interpretation by the court extends beyond just that case have a far larger impact upon society, giving greater power the government. Currently Circuit Courts are divided between a broad and narrow interpretation of the CFAA "The court suggested that reading the CFAA more expansively could result in potential liability for any employee who "checked the latest Facebook posting or sporting event scores in contravention of his employer's use policy."Construing the statute as one "meant to target hackers," the court held that a broader view could transform the CFAA "into a vehicle for imputing liability to workers who access computers or information in bad faith, or who disregard a use policy" (Dial, Moya, & Townsend,