<$BlogMetaData="social security social security social security social social security social security security.$>

Jan 6, 2011

A Warning

From USA v. Rodriguez (11th Cir. Dec 27, 2010)
The main issue in this appeal is whether the prying by a former bureaucrat is criminal: that is, whether the defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits “intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access, and thereby obtain[ing] . . . information from any department or agency of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(B). Roberto Rodriguez, a former employee of the Social Security Administration, appeals his conviction for violating the Act on the grounds that he did not exceed his authorized access to his former employer’s databases and that he did not use the information to further another crime or to gain financially. ... Rodriguez at trial admitted that he accessed information for nonbusiness reasons when he obtained personal identifying information, such as birth dates and home addresses, of 17 persons he knew or their relatives. Rodriguez also appeals his sentence of 12 months of imprisonment on the ground that it is unreasonable. Because the record establishes that Rodriguez exceeded his authorized access and the Act does not require proof that Rodriguez used the information to further another crime or to gain financially, we AFFIRM his conviction. We also conclude that Rodriguez’s sentence is reasonable.

Labels:

Share |
  • Visit the Charles T. Hall Law Firm Website
  • 5 Comments:

    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Glad to see he is going to jail but 12 months is not enough time. Five years would have been reasonable. He had no right to access the information of his friends and relatives.

    3:03 PM, January 06, 2011  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Five years for being nosy? Jeez louise, you are a hard nosed sunofagun. If there was any indication the guy was trying to make a buck or somehow take advantage of his illegal access, sure, add some time. But simple curiosity? A year seems plenty to me.

    3:39 PM, January 06, 2011  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    No, Five years is not enough time. He had no business looking at those records. He violated the public’s trust. We are told repeatedly not to look at records we are not working on.

    4:36 PM, January 06, 2011  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Read the full decision. He used the info to stalk females he hoped to court. I think a year is a gift.

    4:48 PM, January 06, 2011  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Read the full decision. He used the info to stalk females he hoped to court. I think a year is a gift.

    4:49 PM, January 06, 2011  

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home

    Free Counters
    Free Counters