www
vjolt.net
Select a Publication
Volume 1 - 1997
Volume 2 - 1997
Volume 3 - 1998
Volume 4 - 1999
Symposium 2000
Volume 5, Issue 2 - Summer 2000
Volume 5, Issue 3 - Fall 2000
Volume 6, Issue 1 - Spring 2001
Volume 6, Issue 2 - Summer 2001
Volume 6, Issue 3 - Fall 2001
Volume 7, Issue 1 - Spring 2002
Volume 7, Issue 2 - Summer 2002
Volume 7, Issue 3 - Fall 2002
Volume 8, Issue 1 - Spring 2003
Volume 8, Issue 2 - Summer 2003
Volume 8, Issue 3 - Fall 2003
Volume 9, Issue 1 - Winter 2004
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Spring 2004
Volume 9, Issue 3 - Summer 2004
Volume 9, Issue 4 - Fall 2004
Volume 10, Issue 1 - Winter 2005
Volume 10, Issue 2 - Spring 2005
Volume 10, Issue 3 - Summer 2005
Volume 10, Issue 4 - Fall 2005
Volume 11, Issue 1 - Winter 2006
Volume 11, Issue 2 - Spring 2006
Volume 11, Issue 3 - Summer 2006
Volume 11, Issue 4 - Fall 2006
Volume 12, Issue 1 - Winter 2007
Volume 12, Issue 2 - Spring 2007
Volume 12, Issue 3 - Summer 2007
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Fall 2007
Volume 13, Issue 1 - Winter 2008
Volume 13, Issue 2 - Spring 2008
Volume 13, Issue 3 - Summer 2008
Volume 13, Issue 4 - Fall 2008
Volume 14, Issue 1 - Spring 2009
Volume 14, Issue 2 - Summer 2009
Volume 14, Issue 3 - Fall 2009
Volume 14, Issue 4 - Winter 2009
Volume 15, Issue 1 - Spring 2010
Volume 15, Issue 2 - Fall 2010
Volume 16, Issue 1 - Spring 2011
Volume 16, Issue 2 - Summer 2011
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Fall 2011
Volume 16, Issue 4 - Winter 2011
Volume 17, Issue 1 - Spring 2012
Volume 17, Issue 2 - Summer 2012
Volume 17, Issue 3 - Fall 2012
Volume 17, Issue 4 - Winter 2012
or
Select a Topic
Biotechnology
Comparative Law
Contracts Law
Copyright
Economics and Antitrust
Emerging Technologies
First Amendment
Intellectual Property
Internet
Patent Law
Privacy
Telecommunications
Trade Secrets
Trademark
Other
A New Proposal for the Department of Justice’s Interpretation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act
by Natch Greyes
17 Va. J.L. & Tech. 10 (2012)
View PDF
This Note looks at one narrow, yet important piece of legislation, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and how the Department of Justice (DOJ) has interpreted the CFAA, from its inception in
United States v. Drew
to its attempt for legislative adoption of ...
[show]
This Note looks at one narrow, yet important piece of legislation, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and how the Department of Justice (DOJ) has interpreted the CFAA, from its inception in
United States v. Drew
to its attempt for legislative adoption of its interpretation by Congress. That interpretation varies from the traditional interpretation of the CFAA, something this Note highlights, and has been given a hostile reception by the courts, especially in
United States v. Nosal
. Nevertheless, the DOJ’s interpretation is persuasive and its implications are examined in this Note. These implications are contrasted with a historical analogy, the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, and a new solution is proposed, one that both achieves the DOJ’s goals and protects the rights of those who use the internet, by expanding negligent manslaughter to punish conduct like Lori Drew’s and the creation of a new statute to punish conduct like David Nosal’s. [
hide
]
Dual-Processing Models of Admissibility:
How Legal Tests for the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Resemble Cognitive Science’s System 1 and System 2
by Roselle L. Wissler, Keelah E.G. Williams, & Michael J. Saks
17 Va. J.L. & Tech. 11 (2012)
View PDF
This Essay explicates the correspondence between the law’s two most prominent rules for the admission of scientific expert testimony (the
Frye
general acceptance test and the
Daubert
test of evidentiary validity) and the most prominent dual-processing model in cognitive science: System 1 (fast, intuitive) ...
[show]
This Essay explicates the correspondence between the law’s two most prominent rules for the admission of scientific expert testimony (the
Frye
general acceptance test and the
Daubert
test of evidentiary validity) and the most prominent dual-processing model in cognitive science: System 1 (fast, intuitive) and System 2 (slow, reasoned). [
hide
]
Citation Policy
Reprint Policy
Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged in its activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization's contracts, acts or omissions.
