>> cfaa -- a lot of people's complaint is that it is so overbroad.f you read the text of it, it basically says this computer might be on the internet, and you use it in a way that was not specifically authorized by the people who own or control it, and you can be charged under this, which leads to it can criminalize a lot of basic security research that needs to solve the problems we are talking about right now. if a webpage is coughing up data because you into the right input, that could be a cfaa crime, even the you have to do that to prove to the owner of the page that they have a problem. i would say in this case the problem is not that the existing laws to not protect us, but they also put in a bunch of other stuff that criminalizes activity that the people in white hats need to do to stop the people wearing the black hats. >> certainly as well because there are some in cases it can be hard for prosecutors to figure out which ones to bring. >> how many tax dollars do we waste on persecuting aaron swartz, who was -- you could say he was being not

one of them cfaa is not my favorite will ever. i think it does affect this sort of thing at the same time we also need, i know not everyone is going to go through the hassle factor of two-step verification but it should be there. it should work and you should know what it is protecting and what is not. >> i guess i have less to say about the specifics of the lawrence incident. one of the of the things that's on this sort of within the purview of this panel is a related question, a broader question about, as i just professor franks called it, this sort of epidemic of sexual humiliation sites on the net. the revenge board, the up skirt photo sites, those kinds of things. which i think is a serious social issue. my thoughts turned i guess with emma to the first amendment first of all which as she said, crafting even if we think this is harmful, crafting prohibition that would survive first amendment scrutiny with respect to much of this material would be quite difficult, probably not impossible but difficult and would require some ca

it was a cfaa prosecution, was threatened with 10 years in jail and committed suicide. >> moving into bundle bit more of now do we have some sense of the lay of the land, what can be done to change the laws and address some of these issues. i'm, you mentioned a little bit when laws are being crafted, it's very important to understand what you are in unintentionally and at some point mary anne come you can weigh in on this as well. not so much of the federal level, but the state level to write laws that criminalize. if you could give a rundown of what's been tried and where the pitfalls have come. >> scheuer. so i know that professor franks and daniel citroen come as a professor at university of maryland school of law has been working hard to feature it away to craft model legislation that would allow going after only be identified criminal activities that they want to target with the sort of law and not prevent a whole host of other speech. they are kind of key categories you have to think in this law. what kind of content is covered? the content we are talking about is generally cont

we talked about how there's a difference between this case where you have perhaps a violation of cfaa -- where does the dissection of how the image was gotten come into play? >> i think back to what marianne was saying, where if you think consent is the fulcrum or the line, then whether you have hacked into someone's account or have a photograph that was sent to you or you have access to that account gotten in a perfectly reasonable way -- all of those would matter and would have to be evaluated. i mean, there is a much larger debate here about the role of consent. generally, with respect to information, on the internet, there was an active international debate with the so-called right to be forgotten in european -- there's various european laws where if you no longer consent to have information that has been published about you, you can sort of withdraw the consent, have the website delete information that may be floating around about you. again, not to beat a dead horse, but there's a familiar landscape in a sense for the first amendment debate, which has sort of been in the backgro

we talked about how there's a difference between this case where you have perhaps a where doesf cfaa -- the dissection of how the image was gotten come into play? >> i think back to what marianne was saying, where if you think or the is the fulcrum , then whether you have hacked into someone's account or have a photograph that was sent to you or you have access to that account gotten in a perfectly reasonable way -- all of those would matter and would .ave to be evaluated i mean, there is a much larger debate here about the role of consent. generally, with respect to information, on the internet, was an active international debate with the so-called right to be forgotten in european -- there's various european laws where if you no longer consent to have information that has been published about you, you can ,ort of withdraw the consent have the website delete information that may be floating around about you. again, not to beat a dead horse, there's a familiar landscape in a sense for the first amendment debate, which has sort of been in the background of this consent, privacy, infor

it was a cfaa prosecution, i believe, and he committed suicide. >> now that we have some sense of thelay of the land, moving into what can be done to change the laws and address the issues. if you can talk about -- you mentioned a little bit when laws are being crafted, it's very important to understand what you are sucking in unintentionally. at some point, i'm sure you could weigh in as well. there has been a lot of effort not necessarily at the federal level but the state level to try to figure out ways to write laws to criminalize some of this behavior with different levels of success. if you could sort of give a rundown on what has been tried and where the pitfalls have come up. >> sure. a professor at the university of maryland school of law has been working very hard to figure out if there is a way to craft model legislation that would allow going after, you know, only the identified criminal activities that they want to target with preventt of law and not a whole host of other speech. there are key categories you have to think about. what kind of content is covered? the conten