Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Several Supreme Court justices Monday seemed to signal that they're interested in narrowing a landmark cybersecurity law that critics have long charged is overbroad.

Why it matters: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 has been the basis for a number of controversial criminal cases, most infamously the prosecution of activist and hacker Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide while awaiting trial after downloading a large number of academic articles. Narrowing the law could prevent overzealous prosecutors from going after internet users engaging in relatively innocuous activity.

Driving the news: The high court Monday heard oral arguments in Van Buren v. United States, a case involving Nathan Van Buren, a former Georgia police officer who was convicted of computer fraud under CFAA for searching a license plate in a law enforcement database in exchange for cash from an FBI informant.

  • CFAA, among other things, criminalizes accessing "a computer without authorization" or in a way that "exceeds authorized access."

Between the lines: A number of groups ranging from libertarian think tank the R Street Institute to public interest group Public Knowledge said in pre-hearing filings that they view the law as currently construed as overly broad and vague.

  • Several groups said large tech firms dangle CFAA as a threat over would-be competitors, denying access to data and data portability features by invoking the law.

Others maintain that CFAA needs clarifying because prosecutors could extend it to cover a wide range of activity, much of it harmless.

  • Some critics note it could in theory criminalize work like security audits and academic research that scrapes sites for data.
  • The attorney representing Van Buren, meanwhile, contended Monday that someone using their work computer to check Instagram or a work Zoom account to talk with family would be violating CFAA under a broad interpretation of the law.

The other side: The attorney for the Justice Department said it's widely understood that CFAA only covers specific intentional breaches of computer systems and that there's no reason to think it would lead to the "imaginary avalanche of hypothetical prosecutions" floated by the petitioner's attorney.

Several justices in Monday's session, conducted via video conference, appeared sympathetic to the idea that CFAA is being read too broadly and could use reining in.

  • Justice Neil Gorsuch said conduct like Van Buren's is already illegal under other federal and state laws and that interpreting CFAA expansively could make "a federal criminal of us all."
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government's attorney's description of the popular view of CFAA as narrow isn't supported by the text of the law, which she said may be "dangerously vague."
  • Justice Stephen Breyer raised the concern that an employee using a work computer for personal reasons could be viewed as breaking the law.

Yes, but: The skepticism cut both ways at times. Justice Samuel Alito, for instance, said a narrower reading of the law could shield from prosecution people who use their authorized access into a system to engage in unauthorized and illicit activity not criminalized by other statutes.

The bottom line: Lines of questioning aren't fully reliable signals for how the Supreme Court is leaning. Clarity will only come when the court rules.

Go deeper

Dec 15, 2020 - Technology

Europe triples down on tough rules for tech

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

The European Union Tuesday unveiled sweeping new proposals to control tech industry giants as "gatekeepers" who could be fined up to 10% of their revenue for breaking EU rules on competition.

Why it matters: Tech industry insiders tell Axios they view the proposed European laws as more restrictive than anything the companies face in the U.S. — and also tougher than anything else Europe has previously proposed.

Dion Rabouin, author of Markets
10 mins ago - Economy & Business

First glimpse of the Biden market

Photo: Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

Investors made clear what companies they think will be winners and which will be losers in President Joe Biden's economy on Wednesday, selling out of gun makers, pot purveyors, private prison operators and payday lenders, and buying up gambling, gaming, beer stocks and Big Tech.

What happened: Private prison operator CoreCivic and private prison REIT Geo fell by 7.8% and 4.1%, respectively, while marijuana ETF MJ dropped 2% and payday lenders World Acceptance and EZCorp each fell by more than 1%.

Mike Allen, author of AM
42 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Biden-Harris, Day 1: What mattered most

President Joe Biden and first lady Dr. Jill Biden arrive at the North Portico of the White House. Photo: Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

The Axios experts help you sort significance from symbolism. Here are the six Day 1 actions by President Biden that matter most.

Driving the news: Today, on his first full day, Biden translates his promise of a stronger federal response to the pandemic into action — starting with 10 executive orders and other directives, Caitlin Owens writes.