Quiz 01N — Foundational Criminal Prosecutions: Morris Worm to Marcus Hutchins | LawZeee

Question 1

In United States v. Morris (1991), the First Circuit held that to establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the government must prove which of the following?

AThe defendant intended both the access and the resulting damageBThe defendant intentionally accessed the computer without authorization, and damage resulted from that access — regardless of whether damage was intendedCThe defendant's tool was designed specifically to cause harmDThe damage exceeded $10,000 in a single calendar year

Question 2

Robert Morris's worm spread far beyond his expectations because of which specific design decision?

AHe hardcoded a list of vulnerable IP addresses directly into the wormBHe disabled all error-handling routines to prevent detectionCThe worm would replicate anyway one in seven times even when an existing copy said not toDHe distributed the worm through a mailing list to increase infection speed

Question 3

What does the $5,000 threshold in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) determine?

AThe minimum restitution the government will seek in a CFAA prosecutionBThe line between a civil and criminal CFAA claimCWhen unauthorized access causing damage becomes a felony (loss exceeding $5,000 in a one-year period)DThe cap on fines for a first-time CFAA offender

Question 4

The Kevin Mitnick prosecution established which lasting legal precedent regarding sentencing?

ASocial engineering is not covered by any federal criminal statuteBSupervised release conditions restricting internet access are a legitimate and judicially upheld sentencing toolCPre-trial detention without bail is unconstitutional for computer crime defendantsDTheft of source code is protected speech under the First Amendment

Question 5

In the Albert Gonzalez prosecution, what was the primary statutory vehicle used for the payment card fraud charges, and why?

A18 U.S.C. § 1030, because all unauthorized computer access falls under CFAAB18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), because every card transaction crossed state linesC18 U.S.C. § 1029 (access device fraud), which specifically addresses unauthorized use of payment card numbers and authentication codesD18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO), because the card theft operation was treated as a criminal enterprise

Question 6

Albert Gonzalez served as a paid Secret Service informant during Operation Firewall while simultaneously running the TJX/Heartland breach operation. How did courts treat his ongoing criminal activity during the cooperation period?

AAs a mitigating factor, because the government implicitly condoned his behaviorBAs an aggravating factor — cooperation credit requires genuine cessation of the criminal conductCAs legally irrelevant to sentencing because the cooperation agreement shielded him from additional chargesDAs a separate espionage charge under 18 U.S.C. § 951

Question 7

In United States v. Ross Ulbricht, the Second Circuit affirmed which key operator liability doctrine?

APlatform operators cannot be convicted of drug trafficking unless they physically possessed the drugsB47 U.S.C. § 230 (the CDA safe harbor) provides a complete defense to criminal charges arising from third-party contentCOperating a platform that knowingly and intentionally facilitates criminal activity makes the operator a co-conspirator in that activity, regardless of personal involvement in individual transactionsDRICO charges require the government to prove the defendant personally committed two predicate acts

Question 8

How did federal prosecutors identify Ross Ulbricht's personal Bitcoin wallets?

AUlbricht disclosed them voluntarily during a cooperation interviewBA foreign government provided wallet addresses under an MLAT requestCBlockchain analysis correlating his wallet addresses with identifiable transactions on the public ledger, combined with subpoenaed exchange recordsDThe FBI broke the Bitcoin cryptographic hash to reverse-engineer his private keys

Question 9

In United States v. Jeremy Hammond, the court rejected the entrapment defense on what grounds?

AThe Sixth Amendment does not apply to computer crime prosecutionsBAn FBI-directed informant cannot legally constitute government inducementCHammond was predisposed to commit the offenses, as demonstrated by his documented history of prior computer intrusions and enthusiastic AntiSec participationDEntrapment is only available as a defense if the defendant is charged with a violent crime

Question 10

At Marcus Hutchins's sentencing, Judge Stadtmueller imposed time served and no internet restriction. What does the Hutchins sentencing outcome establish as a legal rule?

ADefendants who perform heroic acts after their offense are immune from prosecution under the CFAABPrior malware authorship is not chargeable once the defendant transitions to legitimate security workCNothing — it reflects one judge's exercise of sentencing discretion and is not binding precedent, but it serves as a template for defense advocacy at sentencingDThe statute of limitations for 18 U.S.C. § 1030 is tolled for defendants who cooperate with the security community