Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves Signs Dumb New Restrictions On Electric Vehicles

Policy

from the not-so-free-market dept

If you’re an automaker or oil giant keen on slowing the rise of electric vehicles, there’s no shortage of captured lawmakers ready and willing to implement your terrible ideas, however harmful or impractical.

In North Carolina, Republican leaders have pushed a bill demanding locals destroy any free electric vehicle stations on public land, if local authorities don’t build free gas and diesel pumps alongside them. In Wyoming, state Republican leaders tried to implement a ban on electric vehicles, though the ban itself is little more than performative, oil industry ass kissing.

In Mississippi, Republican Governor Tate Reeves signed a bill recently restricting electric car manufacturers from selling vehicles in person unless they open traditional, franchised dealerships. Reeves is pretending the move, clearly a futile bid to protect oil interests and automotive companies that have lagged on EVs, is all about protecting small businesses:

“Almost 200 small businesses in communities across our state are seeking assurances that big manufacturers can’t just destroy their businesses. That’s fair!” Reeves, a Republican, said in a statement posted to social media. “I also recognize that innovation in this industry is inevitable. And with innovation comes new companies with new business models. I am committed to find long-term solutions—in an ever changing market.”

That justification, of course, makes absolutely no fucking sense in context of what the bill actually does.

Republicans have spent decades pretending to be dedicated to free market innovation. Though their actual track record of coddling giants (see: telecom, banking, energy, airlines, insurance, health care) widely disproves the claim. More recently, they’ve pretended to be a party super interested in “antitrust reform,” though those efforts are also as hollow as a cheap Easter chocolate bunny.

In this case, Mississippi’s more “traditional” restrictions don’t ban the sale of electric cars, but if you’re oblivious or indifferent to Musk’s reputational implosion and in the market for a Tesla, they’ll force you to visit the state’s only sanctioned (via carve out) Tesla dealer in Brandon. EV makers in general are restricted from opening any new stores unless they adhere to the traditional, dated and convoluted franchise model people have been complaining about for decades.

Granted there are still some Republicans that realize this kind of mindless oil and traditional auto industry ass kissing is both harmful and idiotic:

Republican Sen. Brice Wiggins, a Republican from Pascagoula, had hoped Reeves would veto the legislation. Lawmakers were aiming to attract Tesla to Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, an area Wiggins called the state’s economic driver.

“In today’s world, if you don’t innovate, you lose out. We as a state cannot afford to lose out,” Wiggins told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “My vote against the bill was a vote for capitalism, competition and innovation rather than for a policy of protectionism.”

Yet the new restrictions still passed the state legislature 39-13, driving would be EV buyers to a neighboring state. You know, out of an undying love of small business innovation.

Filed Under: big oil, climate change, corruption, electric vehicles, ev, franchise dealership, mississippi, regulatory capture, republican, restrictions, tate reeves

Finally: Countries Start To Rebel Against Corporate Sovereignty, But Ten Years Too Late

Politics

from the we-did-warn-you dept

Back in 2013, Techdirt wrote about “the monster lurking inside free trade agreements”. Formally, the monster is known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), but here on Techdirt we call it “corporate sovereignty“, because that is what it is: a system of secret courts that effectively places companies above a government, by allowing them to sue a nation if the latter takes actions or brings in laws that might adversely affect their profits.

In 2015, we warned that corporate sovereignty would threaten EU plans to protect the environment in the TAFTA/TTIP trade deal between the US and the EU. TAFTA/TTIP never happened, but fossil fuel companies were able to to use other treaties to demand over $18 billion as “compensation” for the potential loss of future profits as the result of increasing government action to tackle climate change.

Chief among those treaties with corporate sovereignty provisions was the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which is designed to protect investments in the energy sector. Research by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) shows that the fossil fuel industry accounts for almost 20% of known ISDS cases, making it the most litigious group. Recently there has been a wave of corporate sovereignty cases brought by fossil fuel companies, with most settled in their favor. The average amount awarded was over $600 million, almost five times the amount given in non-fossil fuel cases.

It has become clear that corporate sovereignty represents a serious threat to countries’ plans to tackle the climate crisis. The obvious solution is simply to withdraw from the ECT, but there’s a problem. Article 47 of the treaty states:

The provisions of this Treaty shall continue to apply to Investments made in the Area of a Contracting Party by Investors of other Contracting Parties or in the Area of other Contracting Parties by Investors of that Contracting Party as of the date when that Contracting Party’s withdrawal from the Treaty takes effect for a period of 20 years from such date.

This “sunset clause” means any of the 53 signatories to the ECT can be sued in the secret ISDS courts for 20 years after withdrawing from the treaty. As a result of this, the EU in particular has been pushing for the ECT to be “modernized”, and recently announced an “agreement in principle” to achieve that. However, it still contains a corporate sovereignty tribunal system:

The modernised ECT will allow the Contracting Parties to exclude new fossil fuel related investments from investment protection and to phase out protection for the already existing investments. This phasing out of protection for fossil fuel investments will take place within a shorter timeframe than in the case of a withdrawal from the ECT, for both existing and new investments: existing fossil fuel investments will be phased out after 10 years under modernised rules (instead of 20 years under current rules) and new investment in fossil fuels will be excluded after 9 months.

Countries that later withdraw from the modernized ECT can be sued for 10 years, rather than the current 20 years. Several EU countries have decided that is not good enough, and have announced their intention to withdraw from the treaty immediately, as Politico reports:

Spain, the Netherlands and Poland have all declared their intention to exit the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Italy left in 2015. Germany, France and Belgium are examining their options, officials from those countries said.

France has confirmed that it will be pulling out, as has Belgium.  For those countries that leave before the “modernized” ECT comes into force, companies can potentially use the sunset clause to sue them during the full 20 years afterwards. The only solution that addresses the serious threat of corporate sovereignty is to remove the sunset clause completely from the ECT. According to one analysis from the IISD, that’s possible if a group of ECT’s contracting parties agree to the move amongst themselves (“inter se”) as part of a joint withdrawal:

There is a legal basis for a withdrawal from the ECT with an inter se neutralization of the survival clause. In contrast to the continued protection of existing and certain future fossil fuel investments under the EU’s amendment proposal, such a withdrawal would put an immediate end to treaty-based fossil fuel protection and ISDS among all withdrawing states. In the short term, this would significantly reduce ISDS risks, given that 60% of the cases based on the ECT are intra-EU. It would also enable the EU and its member states to comply with the EU’s climate objectives and EU law. If further contracting states were to join, the ISDS risk to strong climate action would be further reduced and could pave the way for a fresh, unencumbered negotiation of a truly modern energy treaty that would support the expedited phase-out from fossil fuels and the transition to renewable energy.

It’s an imperfect solution, but better than the half-hearted “modernized” ECT proposed by the EU. The current mess shows that the issue should have been addressed ten years ago, when the problems of the “lurking monster” of corporate sovereignty first became apparent.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or Mastodon.

Filed Under: climate change, corporate soveriegnty, eu, fossil fuels, isds, renewable energy, sunset clause, tafta

Colorado Residents Lose Control Of Their ‘Smart’ Thermostats, Swelter In 88 Degree Heat

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-Dave dept

During a heat wave last summer, some Texans were shocked to wake up and find that their local energy company had turned up their thermostats in the night to save energy. Houston locals weren’t exactly thrilled to wake up sweating in the night to the sound of dehydrated, crying infants.

As it turns out, consumers has participated in a “sweepstakes” that covertly enrolled them in a program named “Smart Savers Texas” operated by a company called EnergyHub. The fine print for that program effectively turned control of these folks’ smart thermostat to the utility company.

Of course, you wouldn’t need to trick users into giving up control of their thermostats using sweepstakes and mouseprint if the grid was capable of handling fluctuations. And the grid would be able to handle fluctuations if Texas utility regulators hadn’t spent the better part of the last decade fecklessly collapsing in the face of energy sector lobbying pressure time after time.

Last week, the same thing happened again in Colorado. 22,000 Denver residents suddenly found themselves locked out of their own smart thermostats during a heat wave and sweltering in 88 degree temperatures:

“I mean, it was 90 out, and it was right during the peak period,” Talarico said. “It was hot.”

That’s when he saw a message on the thermostat stating the temperature was locked due to an “energy emergency.”

“Normally, when we see a message like that, we’re able to override it,” Talarico said. “In this case, we weren’t. So, our thermostat was locked in at 78 or 79.”

On social media, dozens of Xcel customers complained of similar experiences — some reporting home temperatures as high as 88 degrees.

In this case, customers were enrolled in the Colorado AC Rewards program, which gives them a $100 credit for enrolling and $25 off their bill annually. But it also locks them out of their own thermostat during moments of grid crisis. And while enrolling in the program is voluntarily, it’s pretty clear from news reports that consumer didn’t really know what they were signing up for:

Talarico said he had no idea that he could be locked out of the thermostat. While he has solar panels and a smart thermostat to save energy, he says he did not sign up to have this much control taken away.

“To me, an emergency means there is, you know, life, limb, or, you know, some other danger out there — some, you know, massive wildfires,” Talarico said. “Even if it’s a once-in-a-blue-moon situation, it just doesn’t sit right with us to not be able to control our own thermostat in our house.”

If you somehow hadn’t noticed by now, climate change isn’t going to be pleasant. It’s going to be a continual parade of very dangerous life and death (or limb) situations. And it’s going to be getting exponentially worse, especially in central and Southern states (check out this recent map of the expected spike in consecutive 100 degree days if you haven’t yet).

It’s also going to require folks to make a significant number of concessions they won’t like if we want to, you know, survive. And mandatory systems like these may be part of that, since science, empathy, reason, sacrifice, and collaboration clearly aren’t modern Americans’ strong suits.

At the same time, it’s understandable that people want to control something they own. And a lot of these companies aren’t really making these programs completely clear to consumers, even if consumers may not have the greatest track record when it comes to actually paying attention to what they sign up for.

These are also the same utilities (and in many instances governments) that prioritized profits over infrastructure hardening and climate change mitigation measures for fifty fucking years, and would be more than happy to place the entire onus for adaptation on the backs of consumers and gimmicks, instead of developing more innovative, renewable, adaptive, and resilient energy solutions.

Filed Under: 100 degrees, climate change, colorado, heat waves, lost control, smart thermometers, texas, utilities
Companies: xcel

John Deere Still Sucks On ‘Right To Repair,’ Despite Years Of Promises

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the you're-really-not-helping dept

Not only have corporate efforts to monopolize repair resulted in a flood of proposed state and federal laws, the Biden Administration’s recent executive order on monopoly power and competition urged the FTC to tighten up its rules on repair monopolization efforts, whether it’s ham-fisted DRM, or making repair manuals, parts, and diagnostics hard to come by.

At the receiving end of much of the movement’s ire has been John Deere, whose draconian repair restrictions on agricultural equipment often result in customers having to pay an arm and a leg, or drive hundreds of additional, costly miles to get their tractors repaired.

Last week, Motherboard profiled Missouri farmer Jared Wilson, who says a John Deere dealership simply refused to repair his tractor’s broken air conditioning. Why? Wilson was told by the dealership that he wasn’t a profitable customer because he had complained about repeated, low-quality repair work by the John Deere dealership:

Knowing he’d never make it through the rest of his plant without a little cooling in the tractor, he called his local John Deere dealership: Heritage Tractor. He got the manager on the phone. According to Wilson’s affidavit, the manager said that, “I was not a ‘profitable customer,’ due to my repeated repair service complaints and written notices to John Deere’s corporate office about my dissatisfaction with Heritage Tractor’s repair services.”

As recently as 2013 there used to be four repair shops within range of Wilson’s farm. Now there’s just one; a direct result of John Deere’s efforts to monopolize repair, making it difficult to impossible for farmers and repair shops to access, test, or modify system software. To expand his options would require loading the tractor on a truck and hauling it some 80 miles at significant additional cost.

Thanks to the FTC’s updated guidance, an FTC complaint finally got the dealership to repair his tractor. But the farmer was quick to note the whole process remains expensive and annoying, even with his temporary victory:

After some back and forth and an affidavit filed with the FTC about the fight, Wilson said that Heritage Tractor relented and agreed to send someone to look at Wilson’s tractor. But it’s always a fight and he’s tired of it. Worse, it’s costing him money. “Farmers are losing profitably, even with this technology being added,” Wilson said. “Because the additional cost of it is compressing our margin.” 

As the country faces increasing challenges due to a shifting climate, this is the precise sort of counterproductive, idiotic bureaucracy that needs to die. Despite the growing threat of state and federal right to repair legislation, promises by John Deere to improve things haven’t materialized, resulting in the company getting hit with numerous, simultaneous lawsuits and a surge in similar FTC complaints.

Filed Under: agriculture, climate change, farmers, farming, ftc, right to repair
Companies: john deere

Texas Gas Companies Hit Texas Consumers With 'Whoops You Froze To Death' Surcharge

News

from the frozen-to-death-surcharge dept

If you hadn’t noticed, the United States isn’t really prepared for climate change. In part because corporations and disinformation mills have convinced countless Americans a destabilizing climate isn’t actually happening. But also because we were already perpetually underinvesting in our core infrastructure before the symptoms of an unstable climate began to manifest. It’s a massive problem that, as John Oliver highlighted six years ago, doesn’t get the same attention as other pressing issues of the day. You know, like the latest influencer drama or the mortal threat posed by TikTok.

Infrastructure policy is treated as annoying and boring… until a crisis hits and suddenly everybody cares. As millions of Texans found out earlier this year when the state’s energy infrastructure crumbled like a rotten old house under the weight of heating energy demands, leaving millions without power during a major cold snap. While the state engaged in a lot of performative nonsense in the wake of the breakdown, nothing much changed. Most of the state laws passed to “fix” the problem just punted any meaningful action down the road, while carving out big exemptions for natural gas companies that helped write the laws.

Fast forward nine months and the natural gas companies that refused to upgrade and weather proof their infrastructure, still largely haven’t done so. What have they done? Well, recently they decided to hit Texas natural gas customers with a major and obnoxious new $3.4 billion surcharge with the blessing of state regulators:

“Texans will be paying for the effects of last February?s cold snap for decades to come, as the state?s oil and gas regulator approved a plan for natural gas utilities to recover $3.4 billion in debt they incurred during the storm. The regulator, the Railroad Commission, is allowing utilities to issue bonds to cover the debt. As a result, ratepayers could see an increase in their bills for the next 30 years.

So not only did Texas regulators not hold local energy utilities and frackers accountable for not weather proofing their infrastructure after decades of warnings, they’re happily signing off on a plan to let them punish consumers for their own incompetence. The dysfunction runs parallel with similar dysfunction in the telecom sector, where companies routinely fail to adequately invest in their networks, yet still somehow punish their captive customers and taxpayers with the blessing of local regulators who rarely hold them accountable for anything. The big difference of course: a broadband outage (usually) won’t kill you.

Granted the dysfunction in Texas doesn’t just impact Texans. The regulatory corruption and incompetence has a ripple effect on things like natural gas prices, which impacts users in other states as well, as Katie Sieben, chairwoman of the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, told The Washington Post back in April:

“The ineptness and disregard for common-sense utility regulation in Texas makes my blood boil and keeps me up at night,? Katie Sieben, chairwoman of the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, said in an interview. ?It is maddening and outrageous and completely inexcusable that Texas?s lack of sound utility regulation is having this impact on the rest of the country.”

This kind of infrastructure corruption and dysfunction is nothing new (again, just look at US telecom, rail travel, or countless other sectors). But climate change is one arena where state/federal corruption and our propaganda problem has congealed into something particularly nasty. It’s not clear how many mass-fatality events we have to live through before we embrace meaningful corruption, lobbying, and regulatory reform, but it’s apparently going to be a significant number, as America remains utterly allergic to learning anything from history or experience.

Filed Under: climate change, energy prices, surchargers, texas

Texas Pols Shocked To Learn Their Bill Let Gas Companies Off The Hook For Climate Change Preparedness

Politics

from the you're-not-helping dept

Having covered telecom for a long time, I’ve lost track of the times I’ve watched some befuddled lawmaker shocked by the content of their own bill. Usually, that’s because they outsourced the writing of it to their primary campaign contributors, which in telecom is usually AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter. Sometimes they’re so clueless to what their “own” bill includes they’ll turn to lobbyists in the middle of a hearing to seek clarity. This is, of course, outright corruption. But we tend to laugh it off and normalize it, and the press generally refuses to accurately label it corruption.

There are endless parallels when it comes to the energy sector. Like this week, when Texas lawmakers were shocked to realize their recent state energy bill failed to require that Texas natural gas companies harden their infrastructure for climate change–despite the fact their own bill included giant loopholes to that effect.

In the wake of the disastrous and deadly climate-related crisis in Texas last winter, the state passed several bills purporting to fix the problem. Many, like Senate Bill 3, largely just punted the can down the road, urging for a mapping of Texas’s existing energy infrastructure, and giving the Texas Railroad Commission 180 days to finalize its weatherization rules. None of the solutions, of course, challenged entrenched energy providers, or tackled the core of the problem in Texas: an almost mindless deference to wealthy local energy executives.

At a recent hearing in Texas, lawmakers blasted both the Texas Railroad Commission and local natural gas companies when they realized the latter had failed to weatherize their infrastructure with winter looming. The problem was that their own legislation provided the loopholes that made this possible:

“In a committee hearing Tuesday, Texas senators were furious that natural gas companies won?t have to better prepare their facilities for extreme weather before this winter and rebuked the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state?s massive oil and gas industry, for not fixing the problem sooner.

?Wait a minute,? state Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, told Wei Wang, executive director of the Railroad Commission. ?You haven?t done it yet??

But the ?loophole? that lawmakers spent the hearing condemning and the slow timetable for winterizing the state power grid were part of legislation they approved during the regular legislative session in the spring.”

Basically the bill in question lets natural gas companies opt out of system hardening requirements if they simply don?t voluntarily declare themselves to be ?critical infrastructure? with the state. This was all but certainly a provision included by the companies themselves and rubber stamped by the politicians paid to love them. More often than not, a politician’s only understanding of their own bill comes from a .pdf provided by the companies that actually wrote the legislation (usually via some sort of proxy organization like ALEC to give it a thin veneer of faux legitimacy), resulting in obvious outcomes like this one.

Reports continue to illustrate the grotesque cronyism and corruption that resulted in countless deaths in Texas last winter. And of course it’s not only a Texas problem. Our mindless tendency to throw billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors at industry giants while ignoring infrastructure needs in the face of climate change is a country-wide affair. And the wholesale corruption that makes all of this possible continues to be normalized in most press coverage as a growing array of terrible climate catastrophes bear down on a dysfunctional nation.

Filed Under: climate change, electrical grid, legislation, loophiles, texas, weatherizing

Fossil Fuel Companies Want Governments To Pay $18 Billion For Bringing In Laws Tackling The Climate Crisis Largely Caused By Fossil Fuel Companies

Legal Issues

from the corporate-sovereignty-at-work dept

Back in 2013, Techdirt started writing about the boring-sounding Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. It was so boring, we decide to use a better term for it: corporate sovereignty. It’s an appropriate name, since this system of secret courts effectively places companies above a government, by allowing them to sue a nation if the latter takes actions or brings in laws that might adversely affect their profits. It was originally designed to protect companies that invested in unstable parts of the world, and to discourage things like expropriation by corrupt officials. But clever lawyers soon realized it was much more general than that, and could be used as a weapon against even the most powerful — and stable — nations.

It allows deep-pocketed companies — typically multinational corporations — to threaten governments with big fines if they pass laws or make decisions that aren’t to the companies’ liking. That includes actions that are clearly justified and in the interests of the country’s citizens. For example, over the years Techdirt has written about how corporate sovereignty was used to threaten governments that wanted to protect public health, even measures to tackle COVID-19.

In 2015, this blog warned that the TAFTA/TTIP trade agreement under discussion then would allow companies to challenge actions taken to protect the environment, such as bringing in laws to tackle the climate crisis. TAFTA/TTIP never happened, so fossil fuel companies have now turned to other treaties to demand over $18 billion as “compensation” for the potential loss of future profits as a result of recent decisions taken around the world to tackle climate change. Global Justice Now has a summary:

Five fossil fuel companies are suing governments for more than $18bn for taking climate action that could harm their profits, new figures reveal, as protestors demand an end to secretive corporate courts.

TC Energy, RWE, Uniper, Rockhopper, and Ascent are suing governments through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a shadowy system of corporate courts that operates outside of a country’s domestic legal system as it is built into trade and investment deals.

Four of the five cases are under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), an energy investment agreement that includes ISDS, which the UK and EU are signed up to. TC Energy’s case against the US government is under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The $18bn (?13bn) demanded by just five companies is almost equivalent to the entire net annual climate funding provided by rich countries to the developing world, which Oxfam assesses as $19-22bn.

As that last paragraph points out, if the companies are successful — by no means guaranteed, but entirely possible, given the nature of the special ISDS courts — the money needed to pay companies would amount to the the entire annual climate funding provided to the developing world. It seems a bit rich that these companies should not only make huge profits from selling fossil fuels that are largely responsible for our climate crisis, but also want to be paid serious money for being forced to stop. But that’s corporate sovereignty for you; it’s clearly time to get rid of it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: climate change, corporate sovereignty, ect, fossil fuels, isds, lost profits, nafta
Companies: ascent, rockhopper, rwe, tc energy, uniper

Did A Former National Parks Employee Violate The CFAA By Tweeting About Climate Change?

Legal Issues

from the the-tweets-heard-round-the-world dept

As you may have heard, over the past few days, there’s been a lot of talk about various US government Twitter feeds “going rogue” in what many believe is an attempt at a bit of civil disobedience following gag orders being sent from the White House to various federal departments and agencies, with a particular ban on social media. Soon after that came out, the Twitter feed of the famed Badlands National Park in South Dakota, started tweeting about climate change:

Those tweets have since been deleted, but they certainly caused quite a stir, and there’s even what claims to be a private rogue National Parks Service twitter feed that won’t be silenced at @AltNatPartSer. That’s apparently inspired other government employees to set up similar “rogue” Twitter accounts. As I write this, there are about two dozen such accounts on this list, with some personal favorites being the @Alt_FDA, the @RogueNASA and @AltFedCyberz. Now, it’s important to state that there’s no direct proof that these are actually run by federal employees, but the whole thing is fascinating to watch.

But, that alone doesn’t necessarily make it worthy of a Techdirt post (yes, there’s a possible Streisand Effect angle on all of this, but it remains to be seen how strong that really is). What caught my eye, however, was how the National Park Service eventually explained those original Badlands tweets, telling BuzzFeed that they were done by an ex-employee who had retained his password, but wasn’t authorized to tweet from the account:

Now, the exact wording of that statement also made my ears perk up, because “not currently authorized to use the park’s account” could have pretty serious legal consequences. As reporter Matt Pearce unfortunately, but correctly, points out, this could be interpreted, by some, to be a violation fo the CFAA.

You remember the CFAA, of course. That’s the “anti-hacking” Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that has an unfortunately long history of being twisted and questionably interpreted to mean that just about anything people don’t like that you do on a computer is potentially a violation. In particular, many cases have focused specifically on what constitutes “without authorization” or “exceeds authorized access” under the law. The fact that the NPS directly claims that this person was “not currently authorized” certainly could be seen to trip the “without authorization” or “exceeds authorized access” lines.

Of course, the CFAA has different sections — and most of the cases we talk about tend to focus on 1030(a)(4) which covers accessing information whose value is over $5,000. It’s difficult to see how one could twist the Badlands tweets as being about accessing information valued at more than $5,000, but there is also 1030(a)(3), which one would hope also would not apply… but where you could see an overzealous DOJ try to make it stick. That’s the section that says it’s a violation of the CFAA to access a computer that “is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States.”

Now, it’s pretty clear that the intent here is to go after someone who hacks into a system and somehow interferes with the government making use of that computer (and, remember, the entire reason we have a CFAA is because some clueless politicians — including Ronald Reagan — freaked out about the very, very fictional movie War Games). But, given how the DOJ has stretched the interpretation of the CFAA in the past, would it be possible for them to try to claim that by making unauthorized access to a Twitter account, and tweeting those tweets, it was using a computer that “is used by the Government” and the “conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States” and that the access was “without authorization”? It… seems unfortunately possible.

So far, the administration doesn’t seem too concerned about this… but just the fact that this is even possible is yet another reminder of just how ridiculous the CFAA is, and how it is in desperate need of serious reform.

Filed Under: cfaa, climate change, donald trump, former employee, national park service, tweets, unauthorized access