- YouTube says it will be harsher on creators with ‘patterns of harassing behavior’ Today 1:15 PM
- Why one senator stopped a vote on net neutrality Today 12:49 PM
- Man reportedly denied refugee status after officials fail to forward email Today 12:09 PM
- ‘Jojo Rabbit’ star to lead Disney+ ‘Home Alone’ reboot Today 12:08 PM
- Beyoncé and Kelly Rowland were harassed by Jagged Edge as teens, Mathew Knowles says Today 11:52 AM
- White nationalist Nick Fuentes is upset MTV aired his white nationalist views Today 11:37 AM
- Juice WRLD had secret drug-littered Instagram, according to his ex-girlfriend Today 11:10 AM
- Jersey City suspect posted anti-Semitic, anti-police materials online Today 10:30 AM
- Novaruu was banned from Twitch for 3 days—and she can’t understand why Today 10:12 AM
- Pete Buttigieg swears he’s not in the CIA Today 9:28 AM
- Greta Thunberg named ‘Time’ 2019 person of the year Today 9:28 AM
- The best gear and gadget gifts for Dad this holiday season Today 7:30 AM
- The 10 most important sci-fi films of the 2010s Today 7:00 AM
- Netflix advances beyond testosterone-fueled anime with subdued ‘Levius’ Today 6:00 AM
- Influencer accused of selling shirt she was supposed to promote Tuesday 8:42 PM
Earlier this week, judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit passed down a ruling stating that “access[ing] a protected computer without authorization” can be considered a federal crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
This ruling specifically references the case of David Nosal, a former employee of the executive search firm Korn/Ferry, who used a co-worker’s password to access a computer after his access was revoked. The CFAA has been widely criticized for its vague language and for ensnaring activists like Aaron Swartz, who was charged under the act in 2011 for downloading academic journals and later committed suicide.
But how this ruling will translate to the sharing of passwords for Netflix or HBO Go—and who decides what constitutes “authorization”—remains vague.
Judge Margaret McKeown in the majority decision wrote the case was explicitly not about password sharing: “The conduct at issue is that of Nosal and his co-conspirators, which is covered by the plain language of the statute.”
But here’s the thing: Netflix’s terms of service don’t offer permission to share your password. Unless the terms change, you’re technically breaking federal law in doing so without Netflix’s blessing.
In 2014, HBO’s CEO told BuzzFeed that he didn’t really have a problem with users sharing passwords: “It’s not that we’re unmindful of it, it just has no impact on the business,” he said, adding that they’re “in the business of creating addicts.” Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings has been similarly cool-dad about password-sharing, saying earlier this year at CES that it’s a “positive thing, not a negative thing,” though it’s not clear if he meant within households or more broadly. Sharing Netflix passwords was already a crime in Tennessee as far back as 2011.
The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, pointed out that it’s dangerous to make such sweeping rulings in a case about password sharing:
In my view, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) does not make the millions of people who engage in this ubiquitous, useful, and generally harmless conduct into unwitting federal criminals. Whatever other liability, criminal or civil, Nosal may have incurred in his improper attempt to compete with his former employer, he has not violated the CFAA.
We’ve reached out to Netflix for comment.
Correction: This story has been updated for context and clarity.
Audra Schroeder is the Daily Dot’s senior entertainment writer, and she focuses on streaming, comedy, and music. Her work has previously appeared in the Austin Chronicle, the Dallas Observer, NPR, ESPN, Bitch, and the Village Voice. She is based in Austin, Texas.