Quiz 1D — Landmark Cases: Prosecutions and Civil Suits | LawZeee — Know Your Cyber Laws Before You Break It

Question 1

In United States v. Auernheimer (3d Cir. 2014), the conviction was vacated on what grounds?

AThe court found the conduct did not constitute "unauthorized access" under CFAABThe government chose the wrong venue — no connection to the district where the case was prosecutedCThe statute of limitations had expiredDThe evidence was obtained without a warrant

Question 2

The DOJ indicted North Korean programmer Park Jin Hyok in 2018 for attacks including Sony Pictures and WannaCry. What is the most accurate description of the practical outcome of that indictment?

APark was extradited and convicted in U.S. federal courtBPark pled guilty and received a reduced sentenceCPark remains at large — the indictment serves as official attribution and a political/deterrence instrument, not a criminal convictionDThe charges were dismissed because North Korea is a sovereign state

Question 3

In Van Buren v. United States (2021), the Supreme Court held that "exceeds authorized access" under CFAA covers which scenario?

AAn employee who accesses a permitted system area to steal data for personal gainBA police officer who accesses a permitted database for personal financial benefitCA hacker who enters a prohibited area of a computer system they were not authorized to access at allDAny use of a computer that violates the owner's terms of service

Question 4

In re Zappos.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018) is primarily significant for its ruling on which procedural doctrine?

AVenue in distributed cyberattacksBStanding — whether breach victims have sufficient concrete harm to sueCPersonal jurisdiction over foreign hackersDThe statute of limitations in data breach cases

Question 5

In WhatsApp LLC v. NSO Group Technologies (9th Cir. 2021), the court rejected NSO's defense based on what legal doctrine?

APolitical question doctrineBForum non conveniensCForeign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) — NSO claimed immunity as a government contractorDAct of state doctrine

Question 6

Yaroslav Vasinskyi, sentenced in 2024 for the REvil ransomware attacks, was how apprehended?

AHe surrendered voluntarily to U.S. authoritiesBHe was arrested in Poland while traveling and extradited to the United StatesCHe was arrested in Ukraine and extraditedDHe was a U.S. person living domestically

Question 7

The Bitfinex hack prosecution (United States v. Lichtenstein and Morgan, 2024) is notable primarily because:

AIt was the first successful prosecution of a nation-state-sponsored hacking operationBThe defendants were prosecuted for laundering the proceeds, not for the underlying hack — demonstrating law enforcement's increasing focus on the monetization layerCIt established that ransomware payments are always illegalDIt was the first case to use blockchain forensics as criminal evidence

Question 8

Facebook v. Power Ventures, Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) established which principle for civil CFAA litigation?

AScraping publicly available data without authentication does not violate CFAABAfter a cease-and-desist letter plus technical access blocks, continued access constitutes "without authorization" under CFAACCFAA does not apply to civil disputes between private companiesDOnly criminal prosecutors, not civil plaintiffs, can use CFAA

Question 9

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. (9th Cir. 2022) extended which Van Buren principle to a civil scraping dispute?

AEmployees who access authorized systems cannot be liable under CFAABPublicly accessible data (requiring no authentication to view) is likely not accessed "without authorization" under CFAACCFAA does not apply to social media companiesDTerms of service violations constitute criminal CFAA violations

Question 10

Which of the following best explains why the U.S. government continues to issue criminal indictments against overseas hackers who have no realistic prospect of extradition?

AThe government is required by treaty to indict all known cybercriminalsBIndictments serve as official attribution, restrict the defendant's international travel, support sanctions designations, and impose diplomatic costs — even without custodyCThe government expects these hackers will eventually voluntarily return to the United StatesDIndictments without custody are primarily used to strengthen civil lawsuit claims against the defendant