riana on Nostr: I can't really comment on the X v. CCDH opinion, for reasons, but I'll note that it's ...
I can't really comment on the X v. CCDH opinion, for reasons, but I'll note that it's interesting to see what I interpret as *dicta* in Van Buren - that "damage" and "loss" in the CFAA are limited to "technological harms" - has grown to be considered a *holding* of the case by 9th Cir. district courts, particularly since the 9th's second hiQ opinion.
I analyzed courts' citations to that "technological harms" language in a November 2022 article - much has happened since!
https://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2022/11/Pfefferkorn-Manuscript-Final.pdfPublished at
2024-03-25 17:31:47Event JSON
{
"id": "af75e49975f1d7ae95f43e22cfab9e9d5fcfefb72eec7f527b497581f7a8c163",
"pubkey": "fa993f22bc117a667ec7ba2bc3a2c14a58814d39ad5d91d3c6fb58c769e49065",
"created_at": 1711387907,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/users/riana/statuses/112157517933500438",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "I can't really comment on the X v. CCDH opinion, for reasons, but I'll note that it's interesting to see what I interpret as *dicta* in Van Buren - that \"damage\" and \"loss\" in the CFAA are limited to \"technological harms\" - has grown to be considered a *holding* of the case by 9th Cir. district courts, particularly since the 9th's second hiQ opinion. \n\nI analyzed courts' citations to that \"technological harms\" language in a November 2022 article - much has happened since! https://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2022/11/Pfefferkorn-Manuscript-Final.pdf",
"sig": "2744f16c1813ff0e54339d941658ded54bc288d5677d95392a6928dc70840f6ed0b61236c5f3e027743cc792f8926ebe20eef4c75109e4217a8caca0132472ef"
}
