I think you did about as respectful of a job of taking a position against EFF on HN as possible. Keep in mind the EFF is a non-profit that caters to a certain

I think you did about as respectful of a job of taking a position against EFF on HN as possible. Keep in mind the EFF is a non-profit that caters to a certain audience primarily of non-lawyers. So phrases such as: "The CFAA does not explain what "without authorization" actually means." and "The amendment would make it much easier to prosecute anyone for trafficking in passwords or similar information through which a computer may be “accessed without authorization.” The amendment changes the mental state required to simply “knowing such conduct to be wrongful”" Sound plenty powerful/logical to the general public who is already inclined to support the EFF, not realizing: 1. As you mention "knowing" and/or "knowledge" is not just a term of art in law but an actual legal standard that has been defined and redefined through case law (same is true of willful, and reckless in a criminal context); and 2. All law as written (in a vacuum) has very little interpretation until a set of facts is applied to the law where a court may interpret the law setting precedent, much like the Nosal case you highlighted. Just as an analogy, when talking about the 4th Amendment I could say the Founders wanted us to be free from "unreasonable search and seizures" and then tell the public how that is ripe for abuse because there is no definition of "unreasonable" in the Constitution...and I would technically be right, simultaneously ignoring 100+ years of case law which defines unreasonable as applied in 1,000's of factual scenarios.