Anti-Hacking Laws Must be Updated

Lawmakers are busy looking into the 1986 anti-hacking law primarily because it no is no longer up to date with the current online “culture”. Without the needed changes, the law would punish even innocent web surfers. But those concerned with its updating are very careful because changing the penalties might not sink the law’s teeth in legitimate criminals. Revising the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should not set aside the civil liberties of users while seeing to it that cyber-criminals are prosecuted.

One important revision that has to be made is in the power of government to penalize users who violate a website’s terms of service agreements. A law school professor openly said that the present state of the law is harsh. He added that it threatens the civil liberties of Americans who simply give false information on Facebook and other sites.

The professor gave some typical examples in his written testimony of how millions of users give fake information. He wrote that a user could be held criminally responsible for simply writing that he goes to the gym every day when in fact, he goes there only once a month. He added that the millions of users who supply false information about their height, weight or age could be considered criminals. He also mentioned a study that suggested 8 out of 10 users provide false information in their profiles. Incredible, but there are millions of Americans out there who are cyber-criminals!

One critic deemed it necessary for lawmakers to spell out what the law actually means, particularly with the phrase “exceeds authorized access”. This will set the limits of employers to penalize those employees who break terms of service agreements. The same critic also said that the revisions should make those federal employees who are handling confidential information answerable.

Such initial steps and suggestions would narrow down the prosecution threats to those breaches committed by government employees. A letter was co-signed by organizations that have been known to protect consumers and citizens. They laid down their common concern of defending people who break site service contracts by “accident”.