1. Computer Crime Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D.
Institute for Software Research
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

2. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

3. SIM Swap Fraud SMISHING = SMS PHISHING USER IS TRICKED INTO
DOWNLOADING MALWARE
ONTO A MOBILE
VISHING = VOICE PHISHING
SOURCE: U/DRROMANCER
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

4. Computer Crime Interfering with the use of computers
trespass into a computer system or database
manipulation or theft of data
sabotage of equipment and data
extortion by threat to a computer system
Using computers to commit other crimes
harassment
fraud
hate crimes
promoting terrorism
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

5. Civil v. Criminal Law Comparison
Standard
of proof
Preponderance of the evidence
Beyond reasonable doubt
Penalty
Money damages, injunction
Fines, imprisonment
Lawyers
Private (parties hire their own attorneys)
Public (public prosecutor, public defender)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

6. Classification of Crimes
An act can have both civil and criminal consequences, e.g. O.J. Simpson. Acquitted of murder but civilly liable for wrongful death
Felonies
Misdemeanors
Serious crimes, punishable by death or prison for more than one (1) year and/or fines.
Non-serious (petty) crimes punishable by jail for less than one(1) year and/or fines.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

7. Federal Computer Crime Laws
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA)
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA)
Electronic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA)
Communications Decency Act 1996 (CDS)
Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA)
USA Patriot Act
and others …
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

8. State Computer Crime Laws
Often versions of federal laws where interstate commerce is not involved (so federal prosecution would not be possible)
Specialized crimes
spam (e.g. West Virginia)
“deceiving a machine” Alaska Stat. §
computer trespass (Washington)
tampering with an electronic voting machine (Texas)
introduction of false data into a bank computer (Idaho)
cyberstalking (Rhode Island)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

9. Criminal Jurisdiction
When can a state exercise criminal jurisdiction?
Conduct in the state that is an element of the offense
Conduct outside that is an attempt to commit inside
Conduct outside that is conspiracy to commit inside the state + an overt act in the state
Omission to perform a legal duty imposed by the state
Offense is based on a state statute that prohibits conduct outside the state that bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest of the state and the actor knows or should know that his conduct is likely to affect that interest.
International Shoe still applies (minimum contacts)
18 Pa. C.S. §102
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

10. Hageseth v. Sup. Ct of San Mateo Cal. App. (1st Dist., May 21, 2007)
Hageseth was a licensed physician in Colorado
McKay, a California resident, visited an online pharmacy, and ordered generic Prozac, a prescription drug
usanetrx is located outside the U.S.
McKay was asked to fill out an online questionnaire about his health
The answers were sent to JRB Health Solutions which had headquarters in Florida and a server in Texas
JRB forwarded the answers to Hageseth in Colorado
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

11. Hageseth v. Sup. Ct of San Mateo
Hageseth reviewed the answers and issued an online prescription to JRB’s server in Texas
JRB sent the prescription to Gruich Pharmacy in Mississippi, which mailed the drug to McKay in California
McKay took the drug, drank alcohol and committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning
Investigation revealed the drug in his blood
Hageseth was charged in California with practicing medicine without a license, a felony
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

12. Hageseth v. Sup. Ct. of San Mateo
At all material times, Hageseth was in Colorado and never communicated with anyone in California
Hageseth moved to dismiss for lack of person jurisdiction over him
[NOTE: the question here is NOT whether he practiced medicine in California without a license, but whether California has jurisdiction to try him. He might not be found guilty.]
The appeals court refused to dismiss the case
Commission of a public offense within California, commenced outside the state, consummated within its boundaries by someone outside the state, creates liability for punishment
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

13. Hageseth v. Sup. Ct. of San Mateo
The Court of Appeals relied on the “detrimental effect” theory of jurisdiction, articulated by Justice Holmes, in Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (1911):
“If … Daily did the acts that led Armstrong to betray his trust, … and induced by fraud the payment by the State, the usage of the civilized world would warrant Michigan in punishing him, although he never had set foot in the State until after the fraud was complete. Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the State should succeed in getting him within its power.”
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

14. Strict Construction
Problem: criminal statutes are usually “strictly construed.”
(Many exceptions in statute, as in Arizona, California, Texas, but courts often retain strict construction anyway)
If the act is not expressly made criminal by statute, it is not criminal (exception: “common law crimes,” like murder)
The words of a criminal statute are not expanded to cover related or analogous behavior (Soviet Union has a “law of analogy”)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

15. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Prohibits certain acts against “protected computers” that affect interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
''protected computer'' means a computer -
exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government … ; or
which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication
including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States
Also provides for a civil action (private lawsuit) by anyone injured by a violation
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

16. What’s a Computer?
an “electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device.
18 U.S.C. §1030(e)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

17. Acts Prohibited on Protected Computers, 18 U.S.C. §1030
OBTAINING INFORMATION Accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and obtaining
information contained in a financial record of a financial institution;
information from any department or agency of the United States; or
information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

18. Acts Prohibited on Protected Computers, 18 U.S.C. §1030
USE IN FRAUD Knowingly and with intent to defraud, accessing a protected computer without authorization, or exceeding authorized access, to further the intended fraud and obtain anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period
crimes investigated by FBI and Secret Service
PA: “Unlawful use of computer” 18 Pa. C.S. § 3933
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

19. Acts Prohibited on Protected Computers, 18 U.S.C. §1030
DAMAGING A COMPUTER
knowingly causing the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causing damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causing damage
“damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information (covers viruses, denial of service)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

20. Sandvig et al. v. Sessions (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2018)
Sessions was the U.S. Attorney General
Sandvig (and the other plaintiffs) are university professors studying racial discrimination on websites (specifically real estate and employment websites)
Various housing websites (e.g. Zillow.com) prohibit automated recording of information from their sites (“scraping”). Homes.com prohibits manually copying any content or information displayed on the site!
To measure discrimination, the plaintiffs create false identities and use bots to scrape information from these sites, in violation of the Terms of Service (ToS)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

21. Sandvig et al. v. Sessions
Plaintiffs allege:
“The ‘exceeds authorized access’ language has been repeatedly interpreted by courts and the federal government to prohibit accessing a publicly-available website in a manner that violates that website’s terms of service.”
A Department of Justice manual reads: “it is “relatively easy to prove that a defendant had only limited authority to access a computer in cases where the defendant’s access was limited by restrictions that were memorialized in writing, such as terms of service [or] a website notice.”
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

22. Sandvig et al. v. Sessions
Some sites make it a condition of access to the website that a visitor never speak negatively about the website or company. This means that the researches cannot publish truthful conclusions about the sites
Some sites require advance permission if the site is to be used for research purposes
CMU professors Lorrie Cranor and Aleecia McDonald found that the average person visits 1,462 unique websites per year, each with its own ToS, usually modifiable without notice
Plaintiffs are exposed to criminal liability for their work
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

23. Sandvig et al. v. Sessions
Plaintiffs allege:
The authorization provision is unconstitutional as vague, overbroad and infringing on free speech
The authorization provision incorporates private website terms of service into the Federal criminal code
The authorization provision delegates to private parties the legislative ability to define crimes
Plaintiff seek:
a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) is unconstitutional
an injunction prohibit the Attorney General from enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

24. Sandvig et al. v. Sessions
The Government moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
The Court did not dismiss the suit but dismissed the claims of overbreadth, vagueness and delegation of legislative power
The Court allowed the First Amendment claim (free speech) to proceed
The Court “concludes that the CFAA prohibits far less than the parties claim (or fear) it does.” But “plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they have standing to sue, and that the Access Provision violates the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses of the First Amendment as applied to them.”
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

25. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

26. CFAA as a Civil Tool
PharMerica, Inc. v. Arledge (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2007)
PharMerica is a huge pharmaceutical company
Arledge was a top member of its management team
On March 9, 2007, Arledge resigned to become VP at Omnicare, PharMerica’s main competitor
Omnicare is three times the size of PharMerica
Two days before leaving, Arledge deleted 475 files from his hard drive
He copied the files to a USB drive and ed them to his own AOL account
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

27. PharMerica, Inc. v. Arledge (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2007)
PharMerica sued Arledge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, seeking damages and a temporary restraining order
What provision did he violate? Wasn’t he authorized to use his own computer?
Yes, but he wasn’t authorized to delete company files or take company files with him.
Under the CFAA, “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information (covers viruses, denial of service)
Arledge “damaged” his computer
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

28. PharMerica, Inc. v. Arledge
Federal court had jurisdiction under the CFAA
The Court ordered Arledge to
Return the data
Cease using the purloined files
Deliver his new computer for examination by PharMerica’s expert
Postpone his employment with Omnicare until all conditions are met
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

29. Acts Prohibited on Protected Computers, 18 U.S.C. §1030
LOSS FROM UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS
Causing loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
Modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
physical injury to any person;
threat to public health or safety
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

30. Acts Prohibited on Protected Computers, 18 U.S.C. §1030
TRAFFICKING IN PASSWORDS
Knowingly and with intent to defraud trafficking in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization
EXTORTION
With intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

31. Homeland Security Act
Enhances penalties for certain violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
knowingly causing the transmission of a “program, information, code, or command” that results in serious injury or death
If the actor cause or attempts to cause serious bodily injury the penalty is up to 20 years
If the actor cause or attempts to cause death the penalty can be life in prison U.S.C. §1030(a)(5)(A)(i)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

32. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Fraud in connection with access devices. 18 U.S.C. §1029.
“access device” means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, PIN, or other … identifier or other means of account access that can be used … to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds
Prohibits use or trafficking in counterfeit access devices
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

33. 18 USC §1029 Counterfeit access devices
Telecommunications instrument modified to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services.
Fraudulent transactions using credit cards
Use of scanning receiver
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

34. AOL, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc. LCGM is a porno site
LCGM became an AOL customer and harvested addresses from AOL chat rooms
LCGM spammed users through AOL (300,000 s per day)
Bulk s violate AOL’s Terms of Service
LCGM was sued for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Held, LCGM’s use of AOL was unauthorized; LCGM obtained value (use of AOL mailing services) and information ( addresses)
46 F.Supp. 444 (E.D. Va. 1998)
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

35. Oracle v. SAP (N.D. Cal., filed March 22, 2007)
Oracle and SAP are huge competitors in the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) business
Oracle customers had access to a restricted Oracle site to download technical information
SAP induced Oracle customers who were about to change over to SAP to reveal their passwords
SAP downloaded more than 10,000 documents from the Oracle site using these passwords (traced to an IP address at SAP Headquarters)
Oracle sued SAP in Federal court under the CFAA
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

36. Oracle v. SAP Alleged violations of the CFAA:
Obtaining information from a protected computer
With intent to defraud, accessing a protected computer and obtaining anything of value >$5K
Causing damage to a protected computer
Trespass to chattels
Copyright infringement
Unfair competition
Cal. Computer Data Access and Fraud Act §502
The responsible SAP executives resigned
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

37. Major Ideas Criminal statutes are strictly construed
Computers can be used at a great distance to commit crimes
This causes jurisdictional problems if the original statutes did not contemplate out-of-state acts
In general, crimes committed by computer have been treated jurisdictionally in the same manner as other crimes
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits acts against certain computer systems, particularly those used in interstate commerce, e.g. the Internet
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

38. Major Ideas
Computer crime laws are generally ad hoc, developed after some bad incident occurred
General classes:
Computer Fraud and Abuse
Telecommunications Privacy
Identity Theft
Spam
Many specialized state statutes
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

39. Q A
&
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

40. Commonwealth v. Lund
Lund was charged with the theft of keys, computer cards, computer printouts and using computer time without authority at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI)
Statutes reads: “Any person who: … commits simple larceny not from the person of another of goods and chattels of the value of $100 or more, shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny …"
Lund was found guilty at trial
He appealed on the grounds that computer time is not “goods” or “chattels”
Virginia Supreme Court agreed N.E.2d 745 (Va. 1977)
“The phrase "goods and chattels" cannot be interpreted to include computer time and services in light of the often repeated mandate that criminal statutes must be strictly construed.”

41. Can Software Commit a Crime?
Jayson Reynoso wanted to declare bankruptcy
To save legal costs, he licensed a program from Frankfort Digital Services that prepared bankruptcy forms for $219
Reynoso used Frankfort’s “Ziinet Bankruptcy Engine” to prepare his bankruptcy filing
Frankfort advertised that: “Ziinet is an expert system and knows the law. Unlike most bankruptcy programs which are little more than customized word processors the Ziinet engine is an expert system. It knows bankruptcy laws right down to those applicable to the state in which you live. Now you no longer need to spend weeks studying bankruptcy laws.”

42. In re Reynoso
Where the bankruptcy forms provided a space for the signature and social security number of any non-attorney petition preparer, the software generated the response: “Not Applicable.”
The bankruptcy trustee found errors in the forms and learned that Reynoso had used Ziinet
The trustee began legal proceedings against Frankfort (One of many around the country, as it turned out)
The bankruptcy court found that Frankfort, through its software, was a petition preparer, imposed fines and enjoined further use of Ziinet
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

43. In re Reynoso 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007)
Frankfort appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that “creation and ownership of a software program used by a licensee to prepare his or her bankruptcy forms is not preparation of a document for filing under the statute”
The appeals court stated, “We hold that the software at issue in this case qualifies as such”
“Frankfort’s system touted its offering of legal advice and projected an aura of expertise concerning bankruptcy petitions; and, in that context, it offered personalized – albeit automated – counsel. … We find that because this was the conduct of a non-attorney, it constituted the unauthorized practice of law

44. People ex rel. Vacco v. World Interactive Gaming Corp. et al.
“ex rel.” (ex relatione, upon relation) means “acting through.” Vacco was the NY Attorney General
no lottery or … book-making, or any other kind of gambling, … except pari-mutuel betting on horse races as may be prescribed by the legislature … shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state. NY Const. Art. 1, Sec. 9
World Interactive Gaming Corp. (WIGC) is a Delaware corp. with offices in NY.
Golden Chips Casino, Inc. (GCC) is an Antigua corp. wholly owned by WIGC.
GCC operated an Internet casino using servers in Antigua.
GCC advertised in the US; ads were seen in NY

45. Antigua
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

46. People ex rel. Vacco v. World Interactive Gaming Corp. et al.
Users had to enter a home address; GCC checked for Nevada
Users transferred money to a bank in Antigua. They could gamble. Gambling is legal in Antigua.
NYers could gamble by lying about their address
NY Attorney General sought an injunction against WIGC, GCC to stop their activities
Held, NY has jurisdiction. When New Yorkers transfer money to GCC, they are gambling in NY. Doesn’t matter where GCC is.
"traditional jurisdictional standards have proved to be sufficient to resolve all civil Internet jurisdictional issues"
Injunction issued
714 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y.Sup. 1999)

47. UMG Recordings v. Suzy Del Cid (M.D. Fla., filed 2007)
UMG is a recording company
Suzy Del Cid allegedly downloaded music files using Kazaa
UMG accessed Del Cid’s computer to determine that she was engaged in file sharing
UMG sued for copyright infringement
Del Cid filed a counterclaim under the CFAA for unauthorized access to her computer
Also trespass to chattels, extortion and deceptive trade practices
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

48. Identity Theft Act 18 U.S.C. §1028
Deal with making, trafficking in and use of “identification documents”
“identification document” = “document … issued … under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals”
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

49. Identity Theft Act Prohibited acts:
Producing an identification document without authority
Transferring an identification document knowing it was stolen or produced without authority
Knowingly possessing with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents
Knowingly producing, transferring, or possessing a document-making implement … with the intent [to use it] in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

50. Identity Theft Act [Actual identity theft:]
Knowingly transferring, possessing, or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law
Note: this does not prohibit use of non-governmental IDs, such as credit cards, CMU IDs, but does prohibit use of birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, etc.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

51. Threatening
Cal. Penal Code §653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

52. Online Threats
Interstate Communications Containing Threat to Kidnap or Injure, 18 U.S.C. §875(c). Prohibits
transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person or threat to injure the person of another
transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL COPYRIGHT © 2018 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS