Argument on legal access to online information and whether police and other enforcement officers can access information for personal purposes. Hear argument next in van buren versus united states. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the cfaa is an antihacking statute. To ensure comprehensive coverage, the statute prohibits exceeding authorized access. This ensures that the statute covers not just outside, but also inside hackers. In this case, however, the government seeks to transform the prong of the cfaa into a different prohibition. This prong covers obtaining any information via computer that the assessor is not entitled under the circumstances to obtain. It is no overstatement to say that this construction would brand most americans criminal on a daily basis. The scenarios are limitless, but a few examples will suffice. Imagine a secretary who says that her email or zoom account may be used only for businesses purposes or a person using a dating website whe
Mr. Chief justice, made please the court, it is an antihacking statute. Seatingprohibits the that succeeding access. It also covers not only outside but inside hackers. The government seeks to transform the prong into a different prohibition. It covers obtaining information by a computer that predecessor is not entitled under the circumstances to obtain. It is no overstatement to say this would brand most americans criminals on a daily basis. Scenarios are limitless. Imagine a secretary whose employee handbook says her emailers them account may be used only for business purposes, or a person using a dating site using false information to obtain information about a lossal mates, or student. If a government is right, any of these people commits a federal crime. Any employee that use the zoom account over the next giving to connect with relatives would be subject to federal prosecutors. The main argument is that a single two letter word in the definition under exceeds authorized access. T
Quantity of complaints, but i want to talk about the quality or value of those complaints. Since the inception, the Whistleblower Program has been plagued by minor complaints. The 20102011 civil grand jury found that 36 were true whistleblower complaints alleging fraud, waste, and abuse. Then the Whistleblower Program developed a Risk Assessment policy that was designed to triage the complaints and sort them out into low, medium, or high risk complaints. For example, the medium risk cases involved potential losses of 10,000 to 50,000 or they implicate a mid level manager. The medium and high risk cases are not represented in the whistleblower reports. Instead, we get a preponder remembers of cases of low level employees who use Work Computers for personal business, who leave work early, or show up late, who gamble or sleep on the job, or who smoke in city cars and park them inappropriately. Preventing these abuses is worthwhile, but wheres the beef . We dont hear about the big money vi
For example, the medium risk cases involved potential losses of 10,000 to 50,000 or they implicate a mid level manager. The medium and high risk cases are not represented in the whistleblower reports. Instead, we get a preponder remembers of cases of low level employees who use Work Computers for personal business, who leave work early, or show up late, who gamble or sleep on the job, or who smoke in city cars and park them inappropriately. Preventing these abuses is worthwhile, but wheres the beef . We dont hear about the big money violations or mid to high level official misconduct. Why not . If the Whistleblower Program does not receive such complaints, they should know why. If the Whistleblower Program refers such complaints elsewhere, they should know how many involve violations of criminal or ethics law. Since the Whistleblower Program already categorizes complaints according to their low, medium, or high risk, they should ask why they are not reported as such. Thank you. Thank y
Youre on it because thats the beauty of this new system. I wish you the best of luck ruling that out. I hope that eventually the difference in what the community identifies and what you knew about should get smaller overnight. Absolutely. Thats the idea. Yes. Thank you. Any other comments . Thank you. Any Public Comments . Seeing none. No Public Comment, we will move on to item number 5. Presentation from the city Service Auditor regarding the Whistleblower Program. These on report of the whistleblower and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation and report. Good morning chair chu, members of the committee, acting director of audits, civil citys auditor. Im here with that oversees the Whistleblower Program. In 2019, we provided you with the status of our fy18. Were here to give you the full fiscal year update on our whistleblower activities, efforts, and initiatives. We want to thank the liaison for our Whistleblower Program, chivan and peter, to give them an u